And having one that is regulated by the game requires constant hands-on to constantly shift values as required. At least once per season, most likely several times per season.
No it’s not. They just limit entrance (like LE does) and they limit some items which are excluded from it. But for all the items you can trade, you don’t have any requirement to finish that content, nor do you have minimum prices based on rarity/difficulty to get. Those are 100% player driven.
But your suggestion is to remove that conjunction, since you’re removing the inability to buy/sell items while keeping the requirement to beat the content. So it’s senseless.
That is the exact same thing as being in a group in LE and being able to trade with the group that killed Uby with you. That’s gifting. There’s no requirement to get anything in return, therefore it’s not a trade.
Leads to the same thing. Either you set the floor price on the lowest value item or you’re nerfing players that want the lower value item.
So a large variance. Which is something you rage against in LE but is acceptable in PoE (like so so so so many things)? Gotcha.
Your premise is that if you have a rare item that is worth way less than another, then that item needs to drop in rarity. Wings vs manastorm is such an example (among many) where one is much easier to get and yet is worth much more.
Does that mean GGG also sucks at balancing uniques?
Not to mention the Lycia drops, which you also ignored.
You can’t actually take any conclusions because you don’t have data for it. Those boots are rare drops. The chance to get a 2LP is one in 7k boot drops. So there aren’t many to start with. And when they drop, most players know better than to try and sell them, since barely anyone is buying them.
Because there isn’t any build that actually uses them or where they’re BiS. Only people experimenting for fun will use them and they won’t be paying 500M for them.
I don’t know where you’re getting this. Stealth boots have a slightly above 2% chance to drop from among unique boot drops. 2LP is 1 in 141. So you get 2LP every 7k unique boot drops.
Yes, because no one wants to buy them for 10k, so you artificially increase the price to 10M and now everyone wants to buy them.
What that actually causes is simply that not even the fringe players that would have bought them for 10k now buy them.
Instead of someone gaining 10k every now and then, now everyone earns exactly 0.
Yes to the first, no to the second. I want to try playing with this obviously bad item, so I don’t mind spending 10k on them and building around them, since I only “lose” my time.
If I have to lose my time as well as a more significant amount of currency, then I’m not going to do so, unless they drop for me personally, which doesn’t help the market either.
There are plenty of other cheaper meme builds I can try until they drop. So that definitely doesn’t help the market in any way.
I know what you’re trying to achieve, but you won’t ever achieve it by using a formula based on the item’s rarity/difficulty to beat content. It would always have to individually handled based on the previous supply/demand data available and adjusted for build changes.
And that is a waste of time.
It would. Except that I have a dozen more meme builds to try out and their items only cost 10k. So I’ll do those instead and wait for the boots to drop.
There are plenty of smartphones selling for less than half that price with no strings attached. So that would be a net loss for consumers.
Cell phones being sold for 40€ are the equivalent of uniques being sold for 2k.
But the issue here isn’t supply. The issue is perception of value. Stealth boots aren’t worth 1M. Never. So unless I’m splurging, which is an exception, I won’t buy them. Ever.
There are plenty of tier 3/4 items being sold for 1 alch or less. They’re garbage. I guess they should all be tier 5 ad GGG doesn’t know how to balance their game.
The issue here is that things aren’t being sold in stores. Every single transaction is a private one between two individuals. So none of those restrictions apply.
There isn’t a single law stopping me from going on ebay and selling those Austrian books for 1€.
So why do you want to impose one in games?
That is not a limitation, that is a cost you have to pay.
It’s not. You can just as easily focus on Nemesis for better exalteds. Especially because most of what lizards drop is actually garbage as well. Their main value comes from dropping runes which allow you to get more Havocs.
The premise was that when EHG implements choices in the game, they do it in a way where there isn’t an actual choice and everyone uses the same one. This is what you said/implied.
However, plenty of examples in the game actually contradict this.
There are several woven tree setups out there and they all different. No 2 are the same, unless they’re made by the same creator or copied from it.
You also have lots of choices in how you want to create your build. And this is reflected on the fact that you have many different builds around the same skill. Including different setups of the skill node itself.
You also have lots of choices in how you want to build your loot filter. And this is reflected that different people will create different loot filters for the exact same build.
EHG isn’t bad at providing you with meaningful choices. They’re just not good at balancing them properly. But even with the existing unbalance, they do provide you with choices. You don’t get a clear cut “This is always the best option”.
So no, your premise that if EHG does change the MG/CoF ranks and implements multiclassing them everyone will choose the same exact setup (12 of each, according to you) doesn’t uphold to reality.
This is obvious. Otherwise everyone in LE/PoE/D4/etc would 100% play the exact same 1 build with no variation.
There are also several good farming strategies in PoE using the Atlas tree. One of them will always be superior to the others by generating more divs per hour than the rest, even if it’s just 1. And yet, people will still run their own setups based on what content they like.
But there is always a single optimal strategy for the Atlas/woven tree, for your class, mastery/ascension and passives in both PoE and LE, even for which content do you run.
This doesn’t mean that the other choices are useless and everyone always chooses the same.
That isn’t true in either game. Even with the unbalance LE has.
Yes, except in that case I simply don’t trade at all. Why would I? I can get everything myself.
Or, which is the more likely case, I simply won’t play at all.
Forcing people to do content they hate is driving people away. I already told you that the only reason I haven’t returned to PoE2 is because I have to run Sanctum/Ultimatum. And the thought of being forced to do that makes me noxious and I refuse to even boot up the game.
It’s not the main reason. It’s 100% of the reason why I won’t play PoE2.
Sure, but what you’re proposing will lead to another downward spike even more drastic than the current one.
Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand/warp what I said?
You want to respec and you have to pay 1M. That’s 1M of progress that you won’t be able to spend on anything else because it’s gone.
You want to respec and you have to pay with an item that costs 1M. That’s 1M of progress as well. There is no difference between the 2, except in your head.
Except that in the current case, your 1M are effectively gone for good and has no more use (because you don’t have it anymore), but your item stays with you and can be equipped with another character of the previous faction. Or even vendored to get some of the gold back.
Nothing has any value other than the one we give to it. The value anything has depends on the need people have for it.
If scientists alter our DNA and now we get our nutrients from the sun like plants, then food has no value. So food has no inherent value either. Nothing does.
There are lots of useless things that are being sold for millions simply because people give value to it.
Despite our use of currency, we’re still a barter economy. We just went from trading a cow for 5 pigs and 5 pigs for 20 chickens into using money instead for each step.
But it’s still a barter economy. Currency has value because we give value to it so we can barter for the things we want.
It’s the same thing, though:
You progressed in the game for 200 hours until you have 1B. Now you want to respec, so you lose 200h of progress.
You progressed in the game for 200h until you have 1B and bought full gear for 1B. Now you want to respec, so you lose 200h of progress.
In both situations you are exactly 1B short and with no items and you lose 200h of progress.
Except that in the second you actually still have 1B worth of items that another character can equip.
One option just deletes your progress. The other just restricts it.
So you actually want the one where you lose everything to the one where you can still use everything (though not on the same character) and effectively lose nothing (as long as you make another character)?
There are only downsides to paying with currency vs simply not being able to use them on your character.
When those limitations force you to do things you don’t want, then no, they aren’t.
It’s like saying that you can only buy food after eating 5Kg of shit. And you can’t buy food until you do.
Is this a better system than simply not being able to buy food at all and growing your own?
When the attrition you introduce is bigger than the benefit you provide, then it’s not better, it’s worse. And your attrition is bigger than your benefit.
Especially when players start comparing and saying “Hey, on that other country called PoEland I can buy food all the time without having to eat 5Kg of shit. Why do I have to do that here in LELand?”.
If you ask players to eat shit, they will simply move to somewhere where they don’t have to.
Effort and dedication are already rewarded in an equalitarian system by you having more/better than everyone else. You don’t need to further increase that.
No. It’s like saying that rich people deserve tax cuts and pay no taxes.
Or, to follow with your exact example, it’s like saying that a professional athlete has put more effort and dedication into it, so they get to race with a jetpack. But that other professional athlete has put a little less effort and dedication into it, so they only get a propeller hat.
The top 1% players are already rewarded by being in the top 1% and getting the top 1% rewards. You don’t need to change systems to cater directly to them. Poe already did that for many many years, where every system was for the benefit of the top 1%, until they recently saw the wisdom in doing the reverse and introducing systems that actually benefit the bottom half of players (which does also benefit the top 1% as well, and with a larger benefit for them).
What you effectively want to do is that the top 1% already have better rewards because they are able to get those 1/2LP Shattered worlds faster. They already get the best items. But currently any player has a chance to get one.
What you want to do is change the system so that only the top 1% can ever get a shattered worlds and the rest will never ever ever get one.
Honestly, the more we discuss about this the more you sound like an entitled Karen wanting the take the privilege all to herself. Which is very infuriating.
Which type of value can and cannot be exchanged is not a inherent aspect of any market though.
Not everything has - or even should - to be a free market.
That’s nonsensical. is OSRS adjusting with every addition they make the base prices of their items to create a artifical price-floor? No? So why the heck would it be different in the case here?
That’s a factually wrong statement and goes actively against the premise of the suggestion.
It’s to enforce a minimum price for exchange. Just instead of being a general one (the 2k currently) it’s a staggered one based on acquisition difficulty. Nothing more, nothing less.
Which is a direct example of limitations, hence taking away a pure player driven aspect.
This goes actively counter to a actual player driven market like Eve Online or Albion Online where there is not a single item - as much as I know - which cannot be exchanged.
Lack of ability to trade when a market exists is a aspect of the market design.
It’s utterly senseless to set the price based on the least valuable item.
Imagine a book is really bad and hence people perceive it as only being worth 2€.
The publisher price set is 9.99€ though for that page-count and cover-type.
Now without taking into consideration cost of creation… should every book of that type be set to 2€ now as a minimum price because one is crap?
Nah, obviously not.
Instead people have to pay the 9,99€ and people still do. Sure, some won’t… but there will still be people which do.
All it does is shift the amount of demand a bit, and not even in a ridiculously substantial manner unless it becomes a outrageous price.
Hence when for example you math out how long it takes commonly (the 50% chance) to acquire any item of a specific rarity segment and then use the general amount of Gold created until reaching that point you get a baseline.
If you for example take 10% of that as the floor it has no major effects for demand, even for relatively unwanted items.
What it does though is ensure that they aren’t allowed to loose value entirely.
Which is the whole point. A item is demanded to always keep a respective base value which isn’t allowed to be undercut for any reason.
That’s what such a price-floor is supposed to do.
No, a middling one.
LE has a massive one. PoE has one which leans to the large side.
It’s about magnitude. And piss off with your argument about ‘but there it’s fine?’. Yeah, comparatively it is, because the difference when mathed out is so outrageous that you gotta be a numbwit to not state it.
You’re not one though, hence I expect you’ve never actually sat down and took a piece of paper to math out the actual probability after establishing a base scenario from testing.
If you do you’ll realize the sheer difference is so extreme that it’s utterly baffling. We’re talking about end-game stuff, min-max territory. Which is a issue with the scaling of the systems respectively.
PoE’s system is during the majority of progression a bit higher then LE, but LE’s system scales exponentially with a much higher value comparatively in end-game after the turnover point has been reached.
In the setup of LE’s system yes. Which is a different system setup then PoE has for dropping items.
Which can potentially change in the future, but we have no inclination to believe EHG is going that route now, do we?
So why the fuck are you comparing apples and oranges again here?
It’s always the damn same thing. LE does stuff weirdly different compared to all competition… and then when you provide a example of an aspect of a mechanic the outcry of ‘but xyz doesn’t do that!’ happens!
Yeah, no shit Sherlock, LE is the odd ball out after all, they - for some inexplicable reason - don’t try to emulate systems of others properly but instead make half-assed amalgamations without taking the full scale of upsides and downsides into consideration, leading to the mess we have in totality.
PoE’s premise is ‘we provide garbage and jackpots to even out the overall acquisition results’. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes it turns bad with too many good or too many bad items.
LE isn’t going this route, EHG has implemented the respective items to be the top-tier of the areas commonly. You get relatively good uniques from the bosses and you get extremely good uniques from the pinnacle content. Nothing points to the usage of the same damn system, so obviously what you demand to happen won’t friggin happen.
And the Lycia drops are rather well designed, you get relatively ‘meh’ stuff along the way, outside of balance of terror which can be amazing if it rolls well, a gamba item simply to increase the RNG (like Omnis for example) and then you get original sin as the top tier one which evens out in acquisition rate via Winds of Fate… which is really a mid-tier item.
rare item drop. A 2,63% chance to roll when you get boots. A 1 in 117 chance to become 2 LP.
We have a rough resemblence of data available. Math if out how many uniques need to drop to have that happen. Or how many RoA’s you need.
Now look at the general activity on the market, we can take that around 20% will still be MG likely in Legacy as MG is a long-term mechanic.
Then we can see the playercount at any given point.
Reduce the leftover number to 20% - at most, take 10% if you think it’s too much - for actual market activity of the players aligning with MG.
So we got a peak of 3k and a low of 1,5k
So to make it lower we say it’s a general 2k players.
Every hour of playtime you’ll likely drop at least 1 random unique boot. I imagine it actually being higher when actively farming, but once more… low number.
20% of 2k is 400.
10% of that is 40 active players.
40 active players non-stop means 40*24 item drops per day without RoA usage.
That means per day we’ll likely get 960 boots.
That means we drop 25 Stealth per day.
We need 141 to have 1 in LP.
That means every 5,7 days we get a influx of ‘1’.
And since we only take active MG players which trade this inherently means unless they personally need it they’ll list it, since it has value.
We have not even 20 listed. Which demands that there is a outflux of the market as it’s ‘very much’ not the total number - Legacy - of items which have been put into the system.
And that’s taking the numbers while it’s off Cycle too, so barely anyone playing.
Has it reached equilibrium? Likely not, bound to gradually lower still… but it is relatively stable already since that item exists since a good while. The system had 1 1/2 years by now to stabilize, which is a lot of 2 LP Stealth boots which have exchanged hands.
Now that’s a lot of inprecise aspects still, right? So you take it to be within a ~300% range of that in reality, up and down.
So people absolutely did pay for that crap, no matter how you twist and turn it, otherwise we wouldn’t see it still at such a high price, and only at that high price.
Yeah, dunno where I messed up scrolling and got 1 in 117. My bad there.
Only above 0,1% of all the buyers need to pay for one to have more currency flowing in the market then before.
And who says it needs to be 10M? It was a example.
Set it to 1M instead… voila, you need only 1% of the buyers… and 1 in 100 people will still buy it at such a price, it’s ‘just’ 1 mil after all. That’s peanuts in MG.
Nobody cares about ‘you’ there though. It’s about the overall market state, which means a higher number of people in total have a chance to get relevant amounts of currency rather then it being allocated to a few individuals and causing it to grow ‘stale’ hence.
Which by the way is good personally for you too since then your chance to be someone which has money ‘at some time’ is higher. Since it flows faster, which means more people have more opportunity to buy which leads to more items moving hands.
Umh… a low price is inherently a issue of supply?
Too few people want the item compared to those who provide it? Hence yes… a issue of supply? By definition?
The bazaar is the ‘publisher’ in this scenario.
Cause unlike in reality in the game the flow of currency and goods is not mandated by companies as they make the bulk of it. It’s mandated by individuals.
So instead of regulating companies you have to regulate individuals.
There is very little and the majority does.
Example: Falconer when it came out. Most played class together with the broken Mage.
Then it shifted entirely to VK.
Now it’s VK and partially Primalist.
Yes, EHG is very very bad in relation to providing meaningful choice… that’s not even a point of disucssion, otherwise balance would be good, because choice is created solely when situations are relatively even.
If it happens regularly.
There’s been studies that doing that in smaller amounts actually increases engagement time.
It was specifically in relation to water area which are extremely unliked. One study was related to Monster Hunter Tri implementing one, pushing that off and then a group went ahead to study the results of games which had water levels. The result was that comparatively to similar games which were qualitative as high as the compared ones the ones with the water level did substantially better, even if they had a increased amount of players quitting during it, but in a non-substantial manner. The result was that the enjoyment of the game was perceived as higher overall.
Where there’s light there needs to be darkness casting shadow, otherwise you won’t know it’s light.
It’s a fundamental law of the human psyche. You can only get enjoyment when you know misery.
Yeah, but it’s not realized yet, is it? You haven’t exchanged perceived value into actual value (usable thing with direct effect). It’s in the psyche not existing yet.
A item though has a direct effect, so when that effect is missing then you feel bad.
You won’t feel bad for Gold missing as easily - you can - because it does nothing for you, it just gives you options.
Exactly! And we have no need for money (I mean, it’s good to have as a stand-on, that’s the point of it) but we have need for things.
Anything that directly ‘does something for us’ is valued.
Items in LE ‘do something for us’ directly, hence they’re highly valued.
Gold isn’t.
If currencies had such a high value to us then people wouldn’t be willing to throw it out of the window as easily, but since it doesn’t provide a direct effect it’s detached to a degree.
There’s been a myriad of studies about this topic, a vast vast vast amount.
Mostly related to social status, yes.
In games the majority of times the only social status is to be gained through some form of merit though, which makes em so enticing for many people. Appropriate results for approriate effort unlike in reality.
Yes, it is! I don’t deny that after all.
But the perception is a seriously different matter there.
Yes, it would be a massive nerf compared to the current systems, and nerfs are always taken badly.
I think it’s a necessity though. You might not like it, but I still think it’s a necessity for longevity of the product.
And you’re not MG anyway, right? So you’re already forced to do the stuff you don’t want anyway
As we can see! We’re currently doing it, in many many areas. Which is why the game is in trouble… besides the devs squandering funding left and right.
Exactly! And where would that provide a upside for the top-end players?
A lower end player wouldn’t get funding anyway, now they could. A top-end player cannot flood the market as easily, so their position is not as stable as before even, instead the generated Gold is more likely to be spread apart more.
I would argue that’s a good thing and does nothing for the 1%.
And even if it somehow through some weird effect helps a small portion of the 1%… is that enough to make up for those which wouldn’t be the 1% type anymore but a bit below instead?
OSRS has no artificial price-floor based on the item type/rarity/difficulty. No game in history does.
So if you want to create one, and you want it to be a fair one, you need constant adjusting. At the very least, once per season, but more likely more than once.
This is definitely not a fair one, as plentifully discussed already. Harder to get doesn’t mean more valuable. So either you adjust the minimum floor based on the undervalued items, which means an Immortal vise for 100k is perfectly fine, or you adjust based on the overvalued items, which means no one buys the undervalued items (which are now bloated in price).
Yes. But there is a difference between “Everyone gets this limitation” and “Only the best players get to bypass this limitation and everyone else is gated from it”.
OSRS, WoW, etc, all have the first. You want to implement the second.
Might as well just go ahead and add a P2W MTX to allow you to skip content, while you’re at it. Since we’re giving benefits only to the best players, might as well give it to the privileged ones as well.
If the publisher sets it at 9.99€ and people see it as worth only 2€ what happens is that no one will buy it.
Which is what I’ve been telling you all along.
Yes. And if a book has value, it can be sold at a higher price. It will naturally do so due to demand and perceived value.
You have 2 options:
-All books are 10€ minimum. Not a single person buys the 2€ book, outside of family, friends and joke gifts.
-All books are 2€ minimum. People still buy the 2€ book and the 10€ book is sold for 10€.
You want to implement the first, for some reason. I though you were an expert at economics, but I’m starting to press X.
There won’t. You will have 1 person in 100 that will buy it. So you earn 10€ instead of 200€. Major loss of revenue.
Why? LE has as much need to dillute the pool with trash as LE does.
Oh, so bosses in LE don’t drop garbage items as well? That’s news to me.
I’ll give you that Aby/Uby only drop good items (from their exclusive pool). But every single other boss has garbage items. Or close enough to it to be a rule.
Hell, you even have 2 bosses that drop exclusive set items, and they’re not even the best sets.
It hasn’t, though. No one buys it. I already told you that there isn’t a single buld that is using those boots. The only people that will even use them are people that just want to experiment with meme builds.
In fact, the most likely scenario is that no one even picks up those boots at all. They just leave the 2LP on the floor (which is what I also do).
But I went and checked it, just in case. There are currently 10 2LP Stealth boots listed. The most recent listing is from 44 days ago. The oldest is 132d ago.
There are cheaper boots (and with better relevant rolls) than the most recent one, which is valued at 638M.
There are huge gaps in between those listings. You can’t find a new for weeks. Which leaves us with 2 options:
1- Stealth boots are being listed on MG every week. They are valued at a much lower price than the ones we see listed and someone eventually buys them. Given that no build actually uses them, this is either unlikely or the price is so low that that a few players don’t mind spending dimes on them.
2- Stealth boots are, in fact, being left on the ground because MG players know that they have no actual value. Listings are done once in a while, mostly by noobs who think it actually has value due to old abandoned listings.
Which one seems more likely?
If we check the 1LP listings we see the same thing. Earliest listing was today (3h ago, actually) for 20k. It has worse rolls than older listings despite having worse rolls. It won’t get sold.
The next 2 listings are from 23d ago. They’re being sold for 3.7k gold. Still no one is buying them. The next 2 are from 49d ago for 5k.
Then I searched solely for +4 to smoke bomb, which is the more relevant stat. Earliest is from 74d ago (still 1LP) for 1.5M, one 3 days after for 5k. Not even a 1LP +4 smoke bomb for a measly 5k gets sold.
There are also no 2LP +4 ones before 77d ago.
All of this data actually points to the fact I pointed out initially: no one is buying those boots. At all. Even for 5k with good rolls. Because they’re useless.
And you think placing a minimum floor of 1M or 10M will help sellers? At least the way it is right now, they might occasionally profit 5k. With your suggestion they would profit exactly 0.
But if you want we can keep track of those 1LP for 20k and see when/if they’re sold. I’m willing to bet it won’t, unless you want to go there yourself and buy it just to prove a (incorrect) point.
And yet, as I’ve just shown, they won’t buy good rolled ones even for 5k.
Yes. And the overall market state is that no one wants those boots. Not a single person. The only people that might buy it are people trying out meme builds. And they won’t be spending more than they’re worth. Especially when meme builders will try out several meme builds. If this one is more expensive, especially for a crap item, then they would rather try out a different one and wait for a natural drop, which is bound to happen anyway.
Oh, and noobs might also try them. Congratulations, you just created a more expensive noob trap.
It isn’t. If the item has low value, you can have as low of a supply as you want and no one will still buy it at a high price. Unless you scam them into it.
And yet, even with Falconer there were 20 different builds. They weren’t all the same. Many even used different skills. So that is a failed example.
Same for these. Failed examples because even for VK warpath you had several different ways to build them.
And it’s not like the other classes weren’t a choice. They just weren’t as good a choice.
And it’s not like PoE doesn’t have the same thing where 3-4 builds dominate the meta and most of the players use it.
And they are. The 20 different types of Warpath VK that created different builds with different gear and different passives/skill nodes and even skills were all pretty much equivalent.
And the 20 other types of builds that VK had were also pretty much equivalent to warpath. As were the several variants of those builds.
So nah to that. EHG does implement choices well. They just struggle to get the balance between masteries hard to achieve. You know, like PoE did for over 5 years? And D4 did since launch and still hasn’t gotten it right? And every single ARPG in existence did?
You mean like having to do it every single season?
Except that in MH you do that once, get that over with, and don’t do it ever again.
You want players to do that every single season.
Not only that, you want to do that for the type of content that only the top players achieve in any game. Effectively saying that no one else has a shot at that item.
What does it matter? It’s 1M that you will have to farm again. It’s still wasted time. It’s the same thing.
You want to buy a TV. You need 100€.
You buy the TV, someone takes it away from you. You lost 100€.
You haven’t bought the TV yet, someone takes your 100€ away from you. You lost 100€.
In both cases you’re left with 0€ and no TV. It makes no difference if you bought it before or not, except that if you did, someone else made money out of you before you lost it.
Sure it is. If you buy an exalted for 500M and then you lose it because you shattered it by mistake, you don’t go around saying “Man, that sucks. I lost an exalted.” cause no one would care. You go around saying “Man, that sucks. I lost a 500M exalted”.
People don’t, actually. Because money has an actual high value. The only people that are willing to throw it out the window as easily are the people that have lots of it, which means that to them they lose value.
1000€ is very valuable to low income people and they might even be willing to commit a crime for it, whereas it’s meaningless to a rich person and they might throw it away for nothing without a worry.
Money has value based on your need for it as well, just like any item, service or product.
And let’s not forget misers who hoard money like it’s the most precious thing in the world. Because to them it is.
Sure. In PoE, you gain social status if you own an Original Sin. Even if you just bought it and never actually did the content yourself. Because there is also merit in working towards an expensive item. Which you want to remove, or at least gate only for the best players.
The perception of the Monty Hall problem also left renowned mathematicians cursing (and even threatening) Monty Hall for it.
It’s still true though. Should it be changed so the perception is more favorable?
That doesn’t mean I don’t want MG to succeed. LE can only thrive if both MG and CoF succeed. And your measures here won’t achieve that.
Like I said, the only reason I’m not going back to PoE2 is because I’m forced to do Sanctum/Ultimatum. And I’m not alone in that, as a cursory glance at reddit/PoE forums clearly shows.
Hell, even Ziz, Ghazy and Rax disagree with that, and they have no issue doing that content.
No. We’re currently stepping in shit. And you’re going to be telling to players that the way to not step in shit is to eat shit regularly.
Traders that still stick around despite LE’s failings will leave for another game. Because while you might postulate that an economy doesn’t have to require skipping content to work, the reason why most people trade is exactly for that.
People want to trade because they want to skip content they don’t want to do. So they put their effort into getting currency so they can skip it.
Much like RMT buyers want to skip content + they want to skip the effort.
I think you got confused there.
Right now, the top 1% of players are the only ones doing Uby. They sell those items on the market and it’s the 99% of players that buy those items. The 1% don’t buy those items because they already have them from farming Uby.
With your change, you’ll get the top 1% of players still the only ones doing Uby. But now no one is buying because the 99% of players can’t do Uby to be able to buy it in the first place. So they try to sell between themselves, which quickly floods the market until the prices crash.
And the 99% of players are watching 1M Shattered worlds for sale and still can’t buy them.
That’s the change you’re proposing. One that actively harms everyone, although it harms the 1% a bit less, since they do still get the good items for themselves.
It’s a indirect price flooring system. It’s not a hard enforced one but a soft enforced one.
This happens through the inherent item prices towards vendors, which the vast majority of high throughput items fall under.
If a item sells for 1000 Gold to a vendor then the GE won’t ever have those items listed for below 1001 Gold as example.
Which you do, but not to a full degree.
You base it off of the total income relative to achieving a item and then put a percentile to that price.
You don’t use 100% of the relevant price as a floor but something substantially lower. From 5% to 50% I would argue is doable, 50% for example is very high already. A good state will be somewhere between 5-20% likely, depending on what wants to be more enforced… retention of value for people to always have a way upwards or turnover rate for individual items. Commonly in a system like this you want the focus on the retention of value as this leads to a higher count of people with currency to spend, which leads to a higher count of sales in total and hence more funds flowing actively at any time.
The functionality of a market is based on turnover rate in total to a large degree, when it slows down you call it becoming ‘stale’, and a stale market is a market which breaks. It means people in general don’t have to funds to acquire their goals and the people which have the items don’t want to severely undervalue them to get them sold.
Oddly enough this means that low-value items loose even more value and high-value items gain even more value as there’s sub-groups forming in the market which retain value mostly between themselves without interchanging it.
This is the current state of the LE market, it’s very ‘stale’ with little interconnection between the upper and lower areas of players. The more funds switch between them the better the state.
Wha? That’s utter nonsense.
Actually it prefers the players which join the system late rather then allowing those who’ve joined early to retain their position.
That’s the contrary of what you state.
No, that’s not reality, that’s the extreme outcome of the example of the disaprity between perceived value and set value is too large.
What the reality is that the sale number reduces accordingly, in a non-direct way actually.
The more ‘attainable’ it is the more likely to retain the original number to a vast degree. For example 2€ is little… it’s easily affordable for most. 10€ is also still little, people can often easily do it still without any repercussions. This means the count of sales actually doesn’t drop so much that the revenue from the 10€ is lower then the revenue from the 2€ price. It would need the buyer count to reduce to less then 20%.
In many cases actually the opposite effect is seen, buyer count stays above those 20% which leads to higher revenue. Less stock sold… more income from that though. And every product has a specific unknown tipping point which is entirely individual and impossible to see beforehand, only able to be roughly predicted.
What you state is that there is a on/off state only. What reality shows is that it’s a gradient.
If you increase the current 2k gold floor to 2001 there wouldn’t immediately be 100% of buyers opting out after all.
The higher you go the more people opt out. At 2001 instead of 2000 you might’ve a one ina trillion chance someone decides ‘I won’t buy that’ instead of otherwise buying it. The more you raise up the number the more people decide it until at a point it’s 100 of 100 people deciding ‘I won’t buy that’. But before that? You got 1 in a million still doing so… and before 1 in 10000 and before 1 in 5… and so on.
Well, that’s not how it’s done and is actually detrimental for more situations then it would provide a upside.
Sorry to say… but if that were the case then the inherent demand of the price floor would be production cost and a specific markup percentile, down to the cent. We wouldn’t see prices like 4.99€ mandated… we would see 3,54€ or 10,82€ and so on, solely based on cost factor.
In reality the margin rates wildly differ and it causes the well received products to lack the ability to be undercut by a majority of funds being pooled in a area which can afford to undercut. Which is the 1% player in relation in a game. Because that’s the people farming up substantially more items and hence applying less value to their existence as they needed less effort to acquire them comparably.
Hence you don’t protect their free options to rake in massive amounts of revenue but you instead protect the financially weaker portions of the market to not fall prey to the side effects.
Both come at a cost of some kind. Lower price comes at the cost of a substantial amount of ‘weaker’ individuals in the market while higher prices come at the cost of a portion of ‘weaker’ items in the market.
Pick your poison, one is always mandatory to take
Not a factual truth. It’s a possibility, not a necessity to happen.
But related to the respective content it doesn’t do that. The unique drop setup is not created in a way to do that. There have solely been some items which have ‘fallen out of favor’ over time as systems progressed, like the shattered lance set for example, which was actually a BiS item a decent while ago for several builds. But it was not set up this way, it simply started to exist as a side effect, and not in a very even manner either.
And when the respective other bosses were introduced they did as well. Even the uniques form dungeon bosses were top-tier at time of implementation.
Aby/Uby might fall back as well as it progresses, but unlike in PoE this is not a inherent design aspect done, it’s just happening from rampant power creep and a lack of balancing happening which holds pace with it.
I mean… it’s kinda hard to have an argument when reality states ‘people buy it’ as we can see it from the market directly… but you argue against reality.
What can someone say when someone denies the existence of something visible? It’s always a excuse available obviously to sustain the status quo… but reason is not possible then, there is no way available unless something smashes reality in the face directly so it’s impossible to deny.
So you argue that universally every active trader in LE is so utterly moronic, so endlessly idiotic… that they leave 300+ mil on the ground? Universally. Without exception? Unlike any other items which would simply fall in value as more supply is flooded in simply for the off-chance someone is weird enough to buy it?
I mean… I kinda start to get why you’re not playing MG That’s a clear-cut road to failure.
Which is generally the way things go, given we see a 44 day active listing and a 123 day active listing. And yes, price variance is massive there.
Points towards new items coming in to be priced below commonly, if only slightly, hence it points to a form of equilibrium on the market having happened.
Hence that people actually value those things… at around 300 mil.
Just you don’t.
The first, by far Otherwise you would make a universal statement of action, which is nonsensical in this case. Utterly and entirely so. Completely detached from any basis of reality.
They’re so low that people don’t put them into the filter in MG. Hence they don’t get listed, as nobody buys em either.
Anything above 500k does definitely get put into a filter though for the off-chance of someone buying it.
Remember, endless listing slots, hence the effort is the same, and even at a ridiculously low turnover rate it happens sooner or later that it’s bought up. Or you can reprice or remove it from your shop when it falls under the minimum acceptable price-range for selling.
Mine for example is 50k.
Which is a irrelevant amount as the effort to list is nearly as high as to simply play and drop it raw.
You see, that’s where you’re not fully right, but partially still.
The individual item wouldn’t be bought. But if universally everything around that rough power level does have a higher price then you have no option to use something else, hence there is no alternative evenue present suddenly. This means that the turnover rate would stay closer to the original then when seen individually, by magnitudes even.
Also it’s still a matter of supply. If there would be less items available to a degree where actually the few people wanting it have to financially battle for getting it then that means we would see a higher price inherently. Up to a limit… which would be rather low… but higher then the current situation.
Likely at 100-200k at best I would imagine for a 0 LP one, depending on how rare it would be made.
Off-meta usage. Tampering around with ideas that go nowhere. Collectors… whatever might be the case.
They don’t need to be? if every class has 20 builds then that still means only a small fraction is overall used A good balance has as high of a percentile of usage spread out as possible.
PoE showcases that also perfectly… some Leagues had a half-way decent spread, some had 60+% total solely inside a single ascendancy.
Unless you need the respective items from there, which you do a few times, so you have to re-do it. Also it had to be done twice for progression. Once in end-game as well.
So… you wanna say if it’s done once and it’s over then it’s fine?
So… if you beat a boss once despite not liking the fight, even disliking it… and then unlocking the ability to buy from other people further onward… it would be fine?
The thing I argued for?
Because for 90% of people and their brains… it matters!
Be happy to be the 10% in that case, huzzah! You’re not the norm here!
Umh… the opposite actually.
That’s why those people tend to not have a lot of it.
When it comes to enjoyment the reality of a situation doesn’t play as big of a part as the perception of the situation.
Hence yes… in our case absolutely so, since it’s about enjoyment of a entertainment product
But in general you would be right.
Well, because it’s atrocious design. Not annoying but atrociously frustrating. Bugged, still overtuned at parts and unfitting at once.
Kinda like Uberroth, without the bugged part.
Just during progression stage, which makes it severe rather then a mild nuisance that can be ignored.
Is that a universal issue or just a severe balance issue related to the viability of Uby as a boss?
I would argue the second, which is a severe thing EHG should’ve tackled a friggin month latest after implementing that shit-show of a boss-disaster.
Is there any other type of content which is nigh inaccessible because you have a hard time to realistically reach it no matter the character?
So that would hence be the sole exception the a 99% upholding system in that case now, wouldn’t it?
And everyone always tells me that ‘no matter what you play anything can kill Aberroth by now’… so that’s solved itself now, hasn’t it?
So that situation shouldn’t occur with basic balancing in the first place. So the unlock methodology wouldn’t create those situations.
How does your system benefit players that joined late? I’ll remind you that this part of the discussion is about gating being able to buy items until you’ve done the content.
I can’t do Uby. I won’t be able to do Uby whether I start playing at day 1 or day 30. So I will never get Uby items.
The top 1% players can do Uby. So they are the only ones that aren’t gated behind this.
Since the premise was that WoW, OSRS, etc, all gate content for everyone equally and that your proposed change gates content for everyone except the top 1%, I think it’s fair to say that you do want to implement the second.
It does drop. If people perceive an item to be worth 2€ and it costs 2€, plenty of people will buy it.
If people perceive an item to be worth 2€ and it costs 10€, most people won’t buy it. Because it’s not worth that money. Lots of people won’t even buy it even if they want it because they think it’s outrageous that it’s so overpriced.
If you were to say that the book was worth 8 or 9€ and it would sell for 10€ minimum, I might give you the benefit of the doubt, but even then it wouldn’t.
If I have 50 books available, all for 10€, and I perceive one of them to be worth less than that, I will buy the other 49 books before I even consider buying that one.
Because things aren’t being sold in a vacuum. Books compete with each other. If you have 2 products being sold for the same price, but one has a higher perceived value than the other, then that’s the one that is being sold and the other is being left on the shelves.
So to bring that back to our market example, if you place Stealth boots at a minimum price of 1M, what will happen is that people will buy some other boots that also cost 1M instead.
How is that not done? Different books have different prices. Despite there being a minimum floor price for them. You yourself explained that a few posts above.
Books have a minimum price based on their cost and potential value. If a book costs the same to make as another and has a lot less value, it has to sell for a lot less. Otherwise it won’t be bought. The one that has more value and costs the same is the one that will be bought.
That seems basic to me.
No. The price you set is the production cost, along with a markup for profit, added by the perceived value it will have.
Which is why some products can be sold at an absurdly higher price than their cost (:cough:Apple:cough:).
But any two items being sold for the same price that have different perceived values will always favor the sales of the highest value one.
It is. Because like I said above, there are 50 other books at the same price that have a higher value. Those will be the ones that get sold before anyone even considers buying the lower value one.
Is it? Or is the fact that the regular playerbase that is currently playing the game is the players that have been playing this game for years now and they all know that those boots are worth nothing?
If you see Aaron playing, you’ll notice that he leaves most uniques on the ground. And he’s definitely MG.
Same for the older creators (that are playing MG rather than CoF).
So is it more likely the same 100 people in MG currently (we’ll bump it higher from your numbers) are all buying and selling Stealth boots from each other every week, or is it more likely that all those listing are made by people that don’t actually know the value of the items?
You mean that the experienced players don’t do that. Regular players don’t filter uniques. And if they see a 1LP drop, they’ll try to sell it.
It’s still better than 0. And if you make 5k, you might just list them as part of the whole bundle of stuff you placed on your stash. If you earn 0, though, you don’t even list them.
Only noobs list stealth boots for sale. Because no one uses them. If you place a 1M floor, people will buy different boots for 1M, because those boots will have more value for the same price.
But they don’t. There are better options for lower prices.
Stealth boots are only useful for players to do meme builds and have fun with them. Nothing else. They have no gameplay value for the majority of the playerbase.
It doesn’t even have movement speed outside the implicit, which might have saved it a bit.
Unless you’re doing a meme build for fun, you’re better off using any exalted.
It isn’t. The item is garbage. The only interest people would have on it is cursory and certainly not worth spending money on.
Like I said, there are 1LP +4 Stealth available to buy for months. No one buys them. And you’d imagine that between paying 5k for a good rolled 1LP and paying 500M (which no one does), plenty of people would be wiling to buy those first. After all, it would be a really small investment to get your item rolling with a guaranteed T7.
But, again, not one person buys them.
Every mastery has more than 20 builds. Every class has triple that.
And what I said (and you apparently misunderstood, yet again), is that each build has 20 different variants. They use different gear, different passives, different support skills, even.
So even when it’s unbalanced and there’s a mastery or two dominating, you still have choices. Even within any single build, you still have choices. Plenty of them, all equally valid.
So your argument doesn’t hold up.
Well, obviously. But then you either bite the bullet or you find some other way to get it that doesn’t involve that.
Or, if you really hate those levels, you get a different item instead.
If it’s forever and when the next season comes and I make a seasonal character I don’t have to do it again, then yes, only actually no.
Because, as you well know, the vast majority of players will never kill an uber boss in any game. Which means that you’re gating content unequally, favoring the players that already have an easy time getting it.
For 90% of people and their brains mastery respec mattered. And I didn’t see you defend it.
For 90% of people and their brains, being able to get boss items without having to fight the boss matters. And yet you’re proposing the opposite.
So either they all matter and we should all change those, or none of them matter despite their perception by players.
No, that’s privileged talk. Rich people have a lot of money because money generates money. Poor people don’t have a lot of money because they need to spend them all on “luxuries” like food, health, child care, etc. You know, those frivolous things of life.
When a poor person has an emergency that requires spending money, let’s say 1000€ to fix their car (which they need to work and make money), that will often cut away from their future earnings and possibly the ability to buy food.
When a rich person has an emergency of 1000€ they will laugh at you for calling it an emergency.
If I have enough money I can buy property and become a landlord. Now my money is making money without me having to do anything for it (I’m sure you’re aware of the state of the real estate market in most places). Poor people have no way to ever do anything like that.
So fuck right off with that privileged talk of “Poor people have less money because they value it less”
Poor people have less money because rich people value other people’s money more than they value their own.
Capitalism is, at heart, a pyramid scheme designed to make the money flow upwards to a smaller and smaller percentage.
I guess we should start immediately commandingly implementing loadouts, free respecs, all that stuff that 90% of the players have a negative perception of.
Or is it just the ones you have a negative perception of?
It’s a universal issue, as you well know.
You would argue that PoE has a pretty good balance overall and I would agree. And yet, only a small minority does the Uber bosses. The vast majority of players doesn’t do them even once.
And it’s not just in PoE. It’s in any ARPG.
So yes, it’s universal. You might make it more accessible so that instead of the top 1% you get the top 10% of players doing Uby. That still leaves out 90% of the playerbase.
Which, I remind you again, are the main market for the top 1% (or 10%) selling those same items.
Because, no matter how good the balance, player skill is very important in mechanical fights. And most players don’t have that skill past a certain point. So unless you get builds that totally bypass the boss mechanics (like the Judgement Pally last season), then the vast majority of players will never do Uby.
And even last season, you still have to invest into that build heavily to be able to finish the fight.
So you’re forcing people to spend a couple weeks farming for a build they don’t want to play, so they can be able to cheese the content they don’t want to play, just so they can then spend a couple more weeks farming for the build they do want to play.
And in those first couple of weeks, no one is buying the Uby items the top 1% is already flooding the market with.
Well, you see the current situation which happens, right?
The Cycle starts off and prices - obviously - fluctuate.
As supply gets massive - to a large degree because of market flooding - the price falls to ‘nothing’. Which is 2,5k for the buyer and 2k for the seller. This is generally a unsustainable price of any kind to list for. If someone wants to… sure… but not worth to do.
The issue with that is that this includes not only beginner items but gradually also those which would be bought during normal monoliths and up to empowered monoliths. The price-range stays miniscule, extremely so, often at the 2,5k as mentioned.
For the lowermost items that’s absolutely fine, but for any which is reliably only acquired the moment you get close to empowered it stops to be. The biggest hurdle for a large portion people in the game is currently the progression from normal monoliths to empowered monoliths (albeit that’s the fault of inproper progression of normal monoliths, which is a really quick fix, 20 corruption per ‘stage’ and conveniently we got 5 ‘stages’ to the top, hence you end with 80 corruption and move smoothly into the 100 corruption territory) as well as early corruption progression.
Very often this is partially to a fault related to equipment and the lack of acquisition options/knowledge. The majority of people have no idea what any specific prices are, a price-checking tool or even automatic price-preview (for those playing MG) is non-existent and hence this hinders the ‘average joe’ which has no clue about in-depth trading of any kind substantially.
Hence enforcing a minimum price for the items as they progress goes primarily into their favor. For several reasons which I’ll list and explain.
For this case we direly need to take into consideration that we have a listing limit, which goes hand in hand to not break the market in different ways. Let’s say 100 listings max (just to have a arbitrary number if needed in the examples).
Reason 1: A normal player without market knowledge lists whatever is worth the most. Higher price means higher return after all, right? This is not relevant to turnover rate, the average player has no knowledge about this. Hence if something is 5k Gold they list it in hopes of getting 5k Gold, if it sells or not is not relevant. And they’ll pick to exchange the 5k Gold items with a 10k Gold item when they run out of listing space. Gradually moving up the ladder of value this way.
Reason 2: The overall flow of currency rises this way. Instead of having to repeat listing endlessly with low value - which takes a intense amount of time - you get the ‘potential’ of revenue. This is irrelevant of turnover rate as well, the expectation is ‘I accumulate value by listing those items’ already, which is a inventive. And as people still buy items gradually this means overall the flow is higher as equipment is imroved step by step. The cheaper items being bought leading to currency available for better tiems to be bought which leads to… and so on. This is natural in any market environment, visibility is key here.
Reason 3: The visibility aspect, as fringed on in Reason 2. This has a side effect of providing a direct input to the potential power of a item. If it’s based on acquisition difficulty with a floor pricing this means a inexperienced player - average joes commonly are in that category - have a direct visual feedback related to how powerful a item is. This avoids to a large degree the issues which we repeatedly see where people go with 4 T3 items above 2 T5 ones, despite the cumulative power of those T5 being commonly higher then the filled affix slots with T3. This is something any ARPG veteran of the diablo-style itemization systems knows, but it’s not ituitive for someone not of that category. It makes the chance for progression and less roadblocks for progression higher in total, leading to more engagement and people actually playing longer and reaching further, which keeps the market for a longer time ‘fluid’.
This is the major three-pronged reasoning I see for it. It comes at some costs - and some have been mentioned - where individual items will be deemed not worthwhile to acquire. Though since progress has to happen and drops accumulate in the market based on the floor price rather then pure supply without knowledge about demand (which leads to accumulation of items of low quality to a higher amount even with potential supply of higher quality being available for people making the rift between low- and high-quality items even more intense) sales happen nonetheless, even if the quantity of sales in total could potentially fall the overall fluidity of currency itself is higher. And higher fluid currency means more potential for each individual to achieve the stage where they are able to move ‘one step further above’ which leads to those accumulated funds to return into the market system.
Many games do this naturally through the depiction of items being highly level based, diablo-likes have never done that though. And LE especially does a bad job there as spread out Affix tiers cause a surprisingly high need in usage level comparatively to a focused affix tier approach, despite the significant power disparity it often causes, leading to cases where the directly visible value through level is not congruent with the actual power it provides. This could also be solved by reworking the balancing of how Affixes increase level requirements instead. Either/or, would take a aspect away from the market which it could solve as a side-effect simply.
Once more, is any content besides Uby underlying this limitation? And if you personally lack the skill to beat content which is supposed to be a middle-ground between D3/4 and PoE in difficulty… then the game is not designed for you as the audience. If we take into consideration that it’s balanced regarding to the target audience described then everyone from the lower middle area of skill to the top area of skill should have the ability to equip themselves and nonetheless beat the respective content no matter their used skills or class, unless substantial mistakes in the build happen.
If you’re not good enough to be accepted into a raid then you’re gated in WoW as well. Same as with lacking the personal ability to beat the harder quests in OSRS. It’s the same.
Not providing any form of skill checks in your game to gather rewards accordingly is the same as saying ‘anyone can achieve it’ which takes a substantial amount of feeling of achievement away from people who actually achieve it.
For every type of content where 1 person farms it there’s a myriad of people underneath which ‘barely made the pass’ and hence are not ding it again as willingly. Those are the respective target audience for the farmers.
Much like a crafter which tries to make a god-tier item in PoE doesn’t target the average joe as their customer base, it’s simply out of their price-range they’ll ever even deem realistic. They got their own target audience.
As people play on they progress naturally with gear - or are supposed to, and there are several aids available to help make that happen without downsides for the game as a whole - they reach ever higher steps of possibility through said gear. Hence formerly impossible content becomes possible first, barely so, then decently possible and then even easy as it moves along.
The point for games is to provide people the avenue to achieve this relevant to the skill level of their target audience. If you provide primarily easy content then you’ll get primarily low-skilled players as it’s their perfect difficulty range, but you’ll bore out those above at a large percentile. Mid-difficulty removes those low-skilled players as it’s ‘too much’ for them, but it might not be enough for the highly-skilled ones, they might be bored. And difficult content is for high-skilled people and removes everyone else from the equation.
Any well designed game has a coherent ongoing difficulty range for all their content. This rule only stops to apply when both the content count becomes so significant that you have no realistic way to finish it all in a expected reasonable time (hence making that content not relevant and hence not frustrating for the existence) while also having a relevantly sized group of players to warrant it existing in the first place, since this causes a natural spread.
Kinda how WoW went with the mythic dungeons, which are not content that is done by the vast majority of players, their player-count just is high enough to allow - barely - enough people to be in that group to keep it supported, and the long-term grinds otherwise existing are relevant enough in count to not enforce those to be done as a mandatory aspect as other stuff is possible to be done for personal feeling of progression.
LE doesn’t have that. The only type of personal progression available is ‘increasing corruption’ as well as Aberroth and Uberroth. It starts to fringe since 1.2 in other areas by providing the weaver nodes which have specific unique content applied to it. The depth of those systems and the variety of rewards provided from the individual ones just isn’t substantial enough to fulfill the condition yet. Maybe in the future as more stuff comes in.
It’s not guaranteed. Don’t state it as a guarentee hence.
If it would be the case we wouldn’t have overpriced ‘AAA’ games selling as much as they do despite often neither providing graphical fidelity nor gameplay depth comparatively to much cheaper products.
There’s a myriad of reasons as to why a generally low-value perceived thing gets sold for a higher value nonetheless. And the other way around.
Commonly book prices are based on which sort of cover they have and which page count.
Author ‘A’ and author ‘B’ which both use the same publisher and have the same page count have commonly also identical prices. Exceptions apply for follow-up puplications at very very rare occassions when a specific title becomes a bestseller. But a bestseller is the equivalent of the 1% player, so they’re not relevant when looking at ‘the whole’, they’re only relevant in terms of importance to the publisher for overall revenue numbers, which is why they get special treatment.
And nowadays even between publisher the price-differences in Austria are nigh non-existent. A spy-novel costs the same as a coming-of-age-novel as a sci-fi novel as a fantasy-novel. Then we have a higher price category for non-fictional literature, hence informative one, and another one for official teaching literature (which is significantly overpriced for the value they provide, and monopolized actually unless that changed in the last 5 years).
Those prices are nigh identical throughout the bank. Fictional literature isn’t sold at the prices of non-fictional and non-fiction isn’t sold at the prices of fictional, ever. Same with teaching literature and the others.
Under a free market it is.
But this is not a free market example, hence it isn’t.
Apple is not a book. It’s underlying the free market principles and not the price-floor demands of regulation like the book price regulation in Austria for example.
You’re talking in terms of a free market system for pricing.
I talk about a regulated market system for pricing.
Those are vastly different in how they function, and both do function.
Very well in terms of their goals even, just not always do those goals align with what would be optimal for the situation.
Yes, and nonetheless they are all sold at the same price commonly.
We can even use different system of price regulation as example.
Austria has a price-floor (something I recommend for LE)
Germany has a fixed price. You’re neither allowed to sell it below or even above the named price. You have to sell it for that specific one as a company.
To be very specific the price is dictated in Austria by the following things:
Cover-method. Number of prints (more prints less price because the machines don’t need to be re-equipped, which is pricy as they stand still), page count.
That’s it.
What you can see in price differences at times there is only related to printing edition. First edition might be cheaper then second edition. This happens if the prices for materials, work or transport change.
This ultimately can lead to the thing you describe. A book which is expected to sell basically nothing being higher priced then a book which is a follow-up from a bestseller. Then the price can be respectively lower actually, despite the higher demand and supply not always being in-line with said demand, either too much or too little happening.
This is something many publishers have also taken into consideration by now and hence price high-counting edititions number-wise of prints at the same price then low-quantity prints, after all they are not in competition with others (commonly a book is only published by a single publisher after all) and it would just cost them extra while not causing losses for the low-quantity books.
Every Cycle new people come in and old people leave. There is a coming and going, always. As well as returning people.
The ‘forever players’ are a insignificant percentile of the total. They are though the ones in the 1% commonly for obvious reasons.
So yes, it is with a extremely high chance.
Wasn’t the former argument that nigh only long-term players are left? So are they experienced ones now or not?
Either/or… you cannot change willy-nilly between perspectives there, pick a premise.
Not really actually.
Might even be worse then trying to put it up for sale in the first place, pure efficiency based. But people don’t act in terms of efficiency commonly, they design it to be most efficient but don’t execute that efficiently commonly.
Dichotomy of how the brain works related to being efficient and how we perceive what efficient is.
And in the proposed system they roughly would. Outside of the exceptions of that area as not every items has the same power even when positioned in a specific place obviously. But the rough baseline exists.
That has exactly zero meaning to the basic premise of how supply/demand works. Hence you talk about something quite different there.
What is it with you taking example premises as if they were reality? And reality examples with narrow specifics?
Can you stop that somehow? Would be quite nice to have a decent conversation without endless derailing stuff.
Umh…
I’ve lost the thread there of what you’re arguing for in relation.
After all the premise started out with ‘I don’t want to do the content even a single time and hence I would quit’ and now you’re offering regular reasonings for why that argumentation line is weakened.
I really don’t get it by now.
So ‘yes’.
And now we still have the issue of Cycle specifics.
In Legacy obviously permanently, but in Cycle it would provide you with a unfair position comparatively to other players, hence that has to be a mandatory limitation where it cannot apply.
Much like re-doing the campaign with the first character even if follow-up full-skips exist for secondary character. That would need to be re-done in Cycle as well every time.
Unless we ignore the premise of competition, if we put no focus at all onto competition we can do it.
Yes, because it’s a detriment for the game. If the core premise of enagegment longevity is endangered then the perceived fun of a player comes second. Because one is survival for the game, the other is quality for the customer. Quality for the customer doesn’t matter if the game isn’t surviving.
Mind you, that comes within reason only.
And also the premise here is that such systems are allowed to fall when the respective stage causing the downsides is overcome.
As I stated regularly in the argumentations related to mastery respec.
First off, the first sentence is absolutely bollocks, I know what you mean but it doesn’t apply to the actual existing situation I wanna point out, hence it failed to address the respective context.
The second holds true.
And it’s also enforced to only hold true if the person doesn’t waste the money, otherwise they wouldn’t be rich anymore.
The more money they have the more they can squander before it becomes a loss, which is also a given.
If your argumentation would hold true then lottery winners wouldn’t be among the poorest people percentile wise.
As one of the prime examples.
Obviously the less money you have the more frugent you need to use it… but the leeway of usage is in many cases not ‘0’, you can pull the belt tighter in many many many many cases, and if even only by 10€ a month for example.
People which know how to save money and use this knowledge have more money related to those in similar positions then them.
I mean… that’s beyond basic stuff.
The whole argumentation after is based on the wrong premise hence I won’t get into it, it is of no relevance since it doesn’t talk about the same premise.
The vast majroity doesn’t play until maps are reached either.
We have to take into consideration the reason as to why that happens. Loos of engagement before you reach it or lack of ability are two entirely differenct and important factors.
Lack of ability is the norm for newer players - and also has exceptions like everything - and lack of engagement is the norm for experienced players there.
Lack of engagement has to be removed as a metric, hence all those which stop because of that are irrelevant aspects for this specific example, they don’t apply. The boss could be piss-easy as well… if you don’t reach to the stage you could even try to beat the boss then obviously you won’t beat the boss. Someone playing only the first half of a campaign won’t beat a campaign boss… same principle.
So that leaves only those which are inable to do it because of ability. And that’s actually a surprisingly low percentile in total. The majority of people ‘keeping at it’ will beat the bosses sooner or later.
Thise lacking ability usually are often weeded out below, at Maven especially, or Sirus since Sirus requires some surprisingly high amounts of skill from many people in terms of positioning.
It is of no matter if only 10% can beat a pinnacle boss if only 15% are in the place to even try it in the first place after all I know not the right percentile, but I hope you get the premise there.
You’re mixing things up again. We were talking about gating items until you do the content. That doesn’t help players that come later at all. In fact, it makes no difference whatsoever.
Right now, if a player starts a month later they just jump straight into a market that is 1 month old.
With gating content, if a players starts a month later, they have to unlock the content and then jump into a market that is 1 month old (plus however long it takes him to beat the content).
So there really is exactly zero benefit for a player that starts playing late compared to what we have now.
Yes. As we’ve seen already in several threads, plenty of players have a hard time dealing with regular Aby. Or T4 Julra.
Any mechanical boss in an ARPG will always have a significant part that struggles with it and can’t finish it.
This is utter crap and you know it.
Wherever in the difficulty curve a games places himself upon, it has, and in effect it’s mandatory that it has, challenging content.
D4 is aimed at casuals. It has content that is challenging for them.
PoE is aimed at hardcore players. It has content that is challenging for them.
If the game doesn’t have content that is challenging for their aimed playerbase, then it’s not aimed at that playerbase, it’s aimed at a lower one.
But, and this is equally important, if it also doesn’t have content that is accessible to the “lower” playerbase, it won’t survive. It needs to cater to more than one audience at once for different parts of the game.
So, once again, your measures will only make it so that 99% of the playerbase can’t buy those items. And the top 1% that are actually farming those items can’t sell them. You’re only nerfing everyone with this. How do you not see that?
It’s not the same, by a long shot, as you should well know.
First, I’m not gated. I can just get a bunch of friends and go do that ourselves, so that is just plain false.
Second, it’s a different premise. You have a mechanic that requires you to be skillful. And only skillful players will get it. That’s one thing. It’s the same as Uby on CoF. That’s acceptable.
What you’re doing is picking a mechanic that has nothing to do with playing skill, which is trade, and gating it behind playing skill. Which is a very different thing.
In fact, you already have this in LE as well. If you want the T8 runes, you have to get them yourself.
It would be like if you beat Uby and then you have to solve equations in under a minute, otherwise you get no drops. You want to gate mechanics with requirements that are completely unrelated to that mechanic. It’s nonsensical.
As I’ve said before, try to pitch that in the PoE forums and them let me know how it goes.
You’re still nerfing farmers. Previously they could sell to 99% of the playerbase. Now they can only sell to 10% of the playerbase, which are ones that barely make the pass. While at the same time excluding everyone else.
But you’re not trying to gate crafting. You’re trying to gate uniques. That is a very different thing.
If you create a Mageblood with a double corruption and all the bells and whistles, barely anyone will be able to buy it.
But a base Mageblood is something that most players will be able to buy eventually. This is what you’re gating, not the mirror-tier items. Those are already gated by their nature (meaning their cost).
It is guaranteed. If you have 50 books all being sold for 10€, 40 of which have a perceived value of 10€ and 10 of which have a perceived value of 2€, people will buy the 40 books before they buy the other 10, if they buy them at all.
This is obvious. People will always buy first what they think is a good deal. Buying overpriced books isn’t a good deal, so they won’t buy them. Only a few exceptions will, which isn’t enough for profit.
So what would happen is that publishers simply wouldn’t publish that book at all. Because it’s not profitable.
Which is the point I’ve been making this whole time. If you set minimum price ranges that are higher than what the community perceives as their value, then they will not be bought because people will buy similar things for a lower price, or better things for the same price.
And once people stop buying, players also stop selling them.
They are, however, a very very significant percentile of the lower end of the curve, which we’re at now. Most of the 3k players playing LE right now will be players that have been playing LE for a long time.
The forever players are the ones that keep playing even in “off season”. It’s not the casuals that do that. Those have moved on to another game by now.
Yes, which is why no one puts them there now. However, when the cycle started we should have had a flood of 0LP Stealth boots that no one buys.
They wouldn’t because you want to base it on rarity/difficulty to get. And Stealth boots are rare and difficult to get. Other boots are better and easier to get. Thus Stealth boots would have a higher price-floor than better items and would never be sold.
Unless, like I pointed out before, you do it manually and evaluate the worth of an item individually. And you adjust it constantly. Which is a waste of time for everyone.
And this is only discussing uniques. If we delve into exalted gear it’s a shitshow.
Because it’s basd on rarity, a T7 health will be much cheaper than a T7 spell damage with Tempest Strike.
However, most people will want the health and the few people that actually want the Tempest Strike affix now have to pay more than they do now.
Again, I know what you want to do. And it’s nice in theory. But unless you decide the floor-price for each price individually there will always be items that are now never sold because they’re not worth the minimum price. You can’t just make a formula for it.
It has all the meaning. Because if an item is garbage, then the demand is exactly 0. You can tweak the supply all you want, the demand is still 0.
Or, in this case, since we’re assuming someone will want to do a jank meme build, the demand is 0.001%.
So if you increase the price by a lot more than 0.001% (which is what you’re trying to do), then the demand will become actual 0. Because that person won’t buy an item that’s inflated 100000 times.
Almost all of them can even get to 500-1k+ corruption these days and thus do all content outside of Uby.
What is it with you and hugely exaggerating the reality to paint a grimmer picture and then getting annoyed when being called out on it? Can you stop that somehow? Would be nice.
Because, and this is the big difference, that item isn’t available for sale for anyone. If it’s for sale, it has to be available to everyone.
If it’s not for sale, then it’s only available to the ones that want to do the content.
I’d think this would be obvious.
I’m not excluded from buying a jet or a 100M€ mansion. I just can’t afford it, which offers it’s own gating itself.
In fact, your solution only makes real sense in an auction market. There the minimum-price makes total sense. If there’s an auction on a mansion and bidding starts at 100M€, then I’m automatically excluded because I don’t have the currency. But I certainly don’t need to already own a house in order to buy a mansion.
Except that no, as I’ve gone on to explain and you decided to cut out.
In any game like LE or PoE, there will be a very significant amount of players that don’t have enough skill to do the uber boss fights, but they do have enough to farm currency to buy them.
So your measure is only gating those players from getting those items while at the same time shrinking the market for the ones that farm it.
And I’m telling you that this restriction is a detriment to the game. An even worse one in terms of player perception than mastery respec is.
But this also endangers that. Players can get decent equipment. Right now they can farm to work towards a Shattered Worlds, so they keep playing.
With your change, lots of players can now never get a Shattered Worlds, so there’s nothing else to aim for. So they stop playing.
That would be because gambling always targets the most vulnerable, as you well know and ranted against several times.
Poor people buy lottery tickets not because they don’t value their money. They do it because they are scammed into thinking that is a good use of their money.
Knowledge has nothing to do with valuing it.
And I might point out that access to knowledge is also gated by money. There are more systems in place to try to reduce this, comparing to the last century, for example, but it’s still a thing.
Sure, but it is of (quite) some relevance that of all the people that get there you will always have a significant amount that actually don’t have that skill but that still buys their items with the current system.
So your measure would effectively not only make sure those players can no longer get it, but also reduce the demand on the items. Which, considering that the supply remains the same, would effectively crash their prices.
And I might add, since you’re all in favour of merit and achiements:
If an item is rare and hard to get, it will naturally have a higher price. Case in point, an Original Sin.
Players that do the content and get one have merit and have achieved it.
Players that managed to farm 2k divines and buy it have just as much merit.
And if an item is gated behind content and isn’t expensive, then it’s not that strong and shouldn’t be gated in the first place.
You were intermingling both together to be precise.
They’re 2 topics and you argued against the floor pricing because floor pricing would cause the effects you mentioned. That was your argumentation line.
Which is not a existing situation.
And access restriction based on content progression is no new thing either, usually it’s personalized rather then included into a market environment, but there is no reason as to why it shouldn’t be.
Plainly spoken any boss-rewards shouldn’t be tradeable at all, only general items, until the state of what is easily achievable and what is a actual meaningful fight has shifted as balance and/or powercreep happens.
In comparison consumables should be tradeable. But that’s another topic in itself.
You’re 100% right.
Which is why in conjunction - and here it intermingles again - it makes only sense when there is a price floor available, as that still allows progression towards it in a not as severe fashion as we would see currently. It alleviated the effects a older market has on the price-situations to a degree.
In the current situation that as a standalone wouldn’t bode well, absolutely true. It does only work if the side-effects are eased respectively.
But that also was never about benefit there, it was about perceived value of the respective content, which is another topic for the specific of content gating.
So those with quite poor skills then, because neither Aby nur Julra are a meaningful struggle. If you’re middling or above middling in skill (hence a bit of overall experience) then those bosses are doable.
Unless you got bad pattern recognition, bad memory or bad reflexes… or all of em together
And that is true! The magnitude how much it challenges you is different though.
If it’s targeted at types specially like you then that means all content is designed with the difficulty grade between that which is just close before boring you out and just close to not overwhelming you as the limits.
Now if you use the absolute full range or narrow it down to a specific degree is up to you. You’re the direct target audience.
The only way to increase the target audience is to provide a especially narrow bandwith of difficulty. Hence staying roughly in the same area.
Why?
Because then the amount of people which it doesn’t bore out and which aren’t overwhelmed is higher.
If you provide the full spectrum then the target audience is miniscule as only very very specific individuals will engage, but those will love it massively as it feels like it’s made ‘just for them’.
And you state it properly, D4 and PoE examples are mostly truthful.
** Who is LE catered towards?**
And don’t copy the PR crap of ‘easy to learn hard to master’ which has been provided by LE. The game design says more then words. Actions speak louder then words after all.
The initial design which was upheld roughly for years was to provide a harder experience then D4 and a easier one then PoE.
Then Aberroth came, which is similar to PoE.
Then Uberroth came, which is harder then bosses in PoE comparatively.
So… does the game still cater to the same people? Or has EHG fucked up simply?
I would say the second.
So since it’s a fuck-up it means it needs to be fixed to not be one.
Aberroth and Uberroth needs reworks. Aberroth needs the difficulty of a 300c boss, not of a 500c boss. And Uberroth needs the difficulty of a 500c boss, not a 1000c boss.
That’s it. They’re balanced atrociously simply.
So you cannot take them as ‘they’re proper content for the game’ as they simply are not. Nothing points to them being such. And the content variety is not available to excuse their existence at the premise of pulling in a higher variety of players as the content urge from those it should cater to primarily isn’t even sated yet.
That comes first and foremost.
Ok? Since it’s MP, right?
So what stops you from bringing in friends to the Uberroth fight so it becomes easier?
Because it does become easier then.
First of all… if that premise was true it would go both ways.
Which means you cannot allow to trade anything which can be unlocked as well.
Where is it a written rule that it can’t? And why the heck wouldn’t it be a viable option to take hence?
Yeah, and?
So… you’re nerfing the 1% so they cannot gather as many resources.
What’s the issue hence? If the total resource allocation of generated resources isn’t culminated at those top players it means it’s more spread at the lower ranges after all. The creation of the resource doesn’t change, it’s the spread of it.
So their reward would - potentially but not with guarante, buit with a very high chance - be significantly reduced but given the inherent value still be above what the vast majority of people can make, on top of their general ability to farm high-end content since the power to beat Uberroth highly correlates (not causates, so exceptions again obviously) with the ability to deal with high corruption content.
So here is the issue?
You cannot raise up the lower ranks without hindering the higher ranks.
There is no utopia where suddenly everyone is rich… because nobody is rich then
So you keep the curve relatively shallow, LE has a ridiculously steep curve in terms of owned assets.
Wrong premise again.
The example was related to who’s targeted with actions. I dunno how to even answer your stuff there as it’s not compatible with what I wanted to provide as the core of the information.
So I’ll simply ask a question instead:
What exactly do you think would be the differences between gating crafting and between gating uniques?
For your mageblood premise… firs tof it’s a core drop, not a boss-unique, so it wouldn’t be affected at all. For exmaple a cinderblood swallow would be, so bossing services would become slightly more sought after simply and the general price not change much. Might in reality go three ways, less people investing into it as the turnover rate would be less and hence not wanting to wait for items to sell, potentially rising their price. Otherwise people keeping up the pace and producing a abundance of those comparatively - more likely - which would drop the respective prices as supply rises related to demand. And as the last option with the rise in bossing services we could see a higher count of people realizing what it provides and actually vieing to get those rewards, if buy buying or actually trying to farm them up themselves (the least likely).
Sure!
So you’re saying sci-fi fans would rather buy the 10€ romance before buying the - perceived - trashy sci-fi story comparatively?
Mhmm… surely upholds!
Stuff is bought on merit. Different builds, different tries to make something, different items needed hence.
‘Oh no, I want to make a off meta-build with Stealth… such a shame they cost the same as any other unique which are rare! If they were prices as less I would buy em maybe!’ is absolutely not the way someone wanting to try something out goes
And nonetheless they do make a boatload of hail marys anyway just for the option something ‘sticks’ and creates a new trend, as long as it upholds basic quality standards.
And people actually buy stuff anyway, not at the quantity of other stuff… but they do.
There is always a turnover rate as long as you’re placed together with all the other books, people buy it simply cause it’s the genre and there… gotta try it out!
And we both know that people don’t make ‘optimal’ choices for progressing their characters or we wouldn’t regularly have such shit builds as examples from people in the forums.
And you seem to forget something else… unlike a publisher in a game people have no costs applied to putting items up for sale. It’s no loss, only potential profit, outside of the time investment to list the item… as favor isn’t really a limiter.
And our specific example was a 2 LP Stealth after all, which is at 375 mil listed. So listing it for 370 mil and maybe selling it after 2-3 month is a solution only a utter moron would not make.
And there’s - especially in Legacy - a good slew of people which don’t give a rat’s ass about prices, especially in relation to trying out builds. ‘I want to make a xyz build!’ so they do it. Consequences be damned, and they are one of the most reliable players as they simply enjoy the process of building up their respective characters with very few limits related to how well or badly it performs or how much or little effort it entails. As long as they do it that suffices.
That’s called a market regulating itself, right?
So when there’s 100 unsold uniques of the same price… people might stop flooding and instead not listing Outside of those which list everything without thought and simply having a decent price-tag attached anyway.
So the chance of selling it - the turnover rate - drops for each individual listing.
Now think a step further, what happens when there’s a listing limit existing? Which is a major premise for that as otherwise it’ll lead to a very very shit situation overall (no opportunity cost to list, hence flooding isn’t hindered)
As you play you get more and more items which are ever more expensive to sell. Which is natural. First you are supposed to rise in corruption which increases amount of items dropped and hence the amount of powerful ones too.
Secondly you won’t sell all the stuff you list in general, there’ll always be stuff which isn’t as sought after as others.
So what’s the natural action being taken the second you fill up all 100 slots?
You look at the lowest priced listed items you have… and remove either one at random to instead list a higher priced one… or you’re more targeted and remove the one which hasn’t sold for the longest timeframe.
That’s the 2 sensible options unless… once again… the respective player is a moron.
So the listing count related to active players reduces as less people list it. And that causes those listed to be at a higher chance to be sold.
As for them being sold: Nigh any items is. There’s people buying friggin items worth 10k for 10 mil… and there’s other people listing items worth 10 mil for friggin 10k. Both ways exist, the first less so but also.
Hence it only reduces prevalence of the happening but never reduces it completely unless utterly ridiculously priced → hence outside of the funds of people in a majority of time.
So we take for example - arbitrary number, so don’t go all weird again with it this time - that Stealth boots have a floor price of 500k Gold. That’s within very reasonable limits of funds of nigh any player so that means the basis for leftover prevalence existing is still there. So if someone wants it it’s not a life-or-death situation, it’s expensive but they nonetheless buy it to try out stuff. Acceptable loss, nobody gives a single shit about 500k as a half-way decent MG trader anyway. If such a amount breaks it then all reason is lost anyway.
Now the next step: What does it mean for the overall market stage?
Given that we have a very high amount of 5k listing for 0 LP stealth this means that to acquire the same fluidity of the market to happen in the same timeframe 100 pieces would need to be sold comparatively to 1.
Since 5k is nothing and 500k still is jack-shit the prevalence wouldn’t take a negatively correlated hit. After all already nobody sane buys that shit, so the person wouldn’t buy the item based on pure functional merit anyway but on personal flavor decision, namely testing purposes or a off-meta build of some kind.
As the next step: What does this fluidity mean for the market?
Since it would provide a flow of more Gold then otherwise this way it means that more Gold is in active circulation. The person which just received the 500k now has the funds to acquire something for 500k. Unlike otherwise where that same person would’ve needed to sell 100 stealth boots personally to achieve the same. And with 500k you can actually do something based on small merit on the market, with 5K you can do jack-shit. Hence that person is more likely to return that Gold back into the market since they have the ability to buy stuff, which once again… makes it fluid.
If a market is fluid it works, if it’s stale it doesn’t.
A trickle cannot water a field… but a rivulet can.
Several trickles solely make a rivulet… but in our case we create several rivulets, and those create a proper river. Make it big enough and it becomes a torrent.
The easier Gold can change in reasonable amounts between individuals the higher the chance that you individually will have access to a substantially higher portion of the funds in total on the market and be able to make use of it.
It’s a simple concept:
Imagine we have 2 situations where there’s a total of 1 million on the market and 1000 people using it.
Now, imagine we majorly sell items worth 1k… we need 1000 items to sell to move the whole amount of the market around hence.
If we have items be sold at 50k we only need 20 items to be sold to achieve the same.
Since every player has a distinct limit on how many items they need ever for progression per character by raising the floor value we allow less action to have bigger effect.
Since sales happen nonetheless when there’s at the second example still 100 happening in total then the chance for you personally to have a vastly higher share of the market at every single day. Hence you don’t need to wait as long to achieve your next goal.
And since your next goal causes you to re-release the Gold back into the market someone else gets the same chance.
This means overall more Gold switches hands then before, which means despite higher prices every individual reaches their respective goal easier… despite the amount of Gold being in both situations identical.
So, imagine we sell em at 500k per piece minimum, instead of 5k.
Do you think we would’ve 100 people which - for some odd reason, I don’t know a reasonable one - actually bought one now… all universally without fail switch to other boots… which were also available and a better choice before already?
Or might be more then 1 of those 100 still buy em since it’s not a outrageous price in total?
Especially since the other 0 LP boots also wouldn’t be at 2k despite being better but… for example at 50k? So it’s ‘only’ 10 times more and them dropping random uniques also provides them not with 5k but 20k for example for the crap they found, which causes them to get those respective funds vastly easier?
You take it all as a singular in exile existing situation. You gotta look at the total market interaction.
Always ask yourself ‘what is the economic ripple effect happening from it’?
And one’s a common one while the other isn’t. So the price-difference is related to that already to a degree.
Also we’re talking about base. We’re talking about total Affix tier… and Affix spread (which isn’t taken into consideration).
So a floor price for those would be based on the Amounts of Affixes total, the individual tier, the base, the rarity of the respective affixes. And here you go.
Obviously uneven but nobody gives a fuck as valuable stuff is beyond the flooring anyway while not valuable stuff is at the flooring.
Universal mechanic auto-deciding it in a general way. Purely based on rarity and/or difficulty depending on item type.
Suffices if you set the flooring to a lower percentile.
The more hand-tailored the higher the flooring respectively can be related to their real price.
For uniques - since they have a unique mechanic - they’re never ‘0’ unless the price is too high.
It’s just respectively low if they’re shit in comparison.
Even for normal items it’s never ‘0’… just ridiculously low.
First of all… not 100k times.
But even if you do then it wouldn’t matter.
If it’s 5k or 1 mil… those ranges are all within reason of accessibility, and more powerful items would be quite a lot higher-priced anyway, already by supply/demand we have existing, and by respectively also existing flooring for them. Hence in relation it wouldn’t be as much anyway.
The only damn reason why higher prices seem outrageous is because the whole pricing in MG is utterly screwed. Even more so then in PoE, and there already the market is not very stable… just… functioning half-way decently at least
You clearly missed the point…
I made a example of the broader spectrum that it’s not reasonable to take into account ‘it exists’ when the spread is broader and hence has to apply to all classes/masteries. And you’re coming with numerical examples that have absolutely nothing to do with it… I simply used the 20 as example. As just stated.
Why?
State the exact reasoning why a staggered content based system is unfeasable by design.
Because that’s what you state.
Well, I would state you’re excluded from buying a tank in most countries, but some individuals can. You’re also excluded from buying products from several instituations or clubs which require being a member to have access, you’re also excluded to buy specific products unless you’re a worker of a company at times.
It’s called ‘exclusivity’ and is a common concept. If it’s used as a limitation for access to provide a specific institution or individuum with unreasonable upsides it’s bad. If it’s used as a incentive or as a limiting mechanic it tends to be good.
Lemme guess… those directions are for some reason not a viable thing to point out.
Yep, I did.
Either it’s ‘yes’ or ‘no’. You cannot state ‘yes but no’ for the same example. Split em at properly.
And the ‘no’ is irrelevant to what I asked, it has no bearing.
Which percentile is the cutoff line exactly there? 90% cannot? 50% cannot? 1% cannot? 0%?
Your notion is at the premise nonsensical there, it applies to everything and can simply be taken willy-nilly without any even remotely clear-cut metric for decision. It can be ‘yes and no’ whenever.
Hence I simply ignored it, since now it’s ‘yes’, one person managed it extra, so it passed the threshold!
Yep, cause it’s a nerf. Those are always bad for player perception, obviously so
Sounds like a problem of content amount available rather then accessibility of a single item or boss-reward.
Did Uberroth solve the whole content issue for LE suddenly? Or was/is it simply nonsensical inclusion with the state of the game otherwise? Has it at least done a substantial job in solving it if it didn’t solve it?
Nah?
Then don’t use it as the ‘this is the line!’ example. There’s a ton of stuff to farm, if it fails at getting a shattered world then the game in general is a lost case already and any arguing is senseless since it’s not worth it anymore.
For the winners it definitely was a good use of their money.
Before winning it is not, as the probability simply isn’t in your favor, hence you shouldn’t do it.
Has jack-shit - once again - to do with what my argument was.
It’s just the most prevalent group with direct reliable data on how it turned out, so they’re used as the example here.
Stay within the example instead of turning randomly around and jumping face-first into a wall for no goddamn reason.
Wow… you’re kinda far gone on that topic by now.
Usage of knowledge demands having knowledge. If you don’t have it you don’t know how to do it.
And that’s a reason for a portion (before you go off the rails again before turning on that brain of yours thinking what might be said with that topic) of them not managing it.
Like several other reasons.
And yes, obviously ‘absolute financial inability’ is included.
‘Wisdom’ as we call it is not gated by money. Actually it’s one of the things which are hard-pressed to be acquired trough monetary ways. The common-sense of action is a thought direction and not memorization.
As for the political stuff it hinges on… I won’t go into that, this is not the place for it simply.
You’re still going from the aspect of ‘Uberroth is in a fine position it should stay in’.
Which I’m not sharing, hence this whole premise you make is not relatable.
It doesn’t apply if Uberroth is not unreasonably hard but achievable and within the confines of reasonable difficulty for the target audience of the game.
But it currently isn’t.
The premise it that it has to be.
Hence the whole argumentation line is still a nothing-burger. You’re right there! But still not the direction which needs to happen anyway.
Why not?
Which reason is there to gate a item, go ahead and tell me.
Because no matter what I bring up you always act for ‘free access’ completely.
I’ve started to become rather curious what you deem a ‘reason for gating a item’.
No, I’ve always kept both separate. They’re separate topics with separate issues and I’ve always tackled them separately.
They’re not dependent on each other and you could implement either without implementing the other without consequences to them.
Sure. But you can have bad pattern recognition and still excel in other parts of the game. You may not be able to do Ubers, but you’re great at deep delving, for example. Don’t those have merit as well?
Not just the magnitude. Also the type of challenge.
As I said, you can be a great delver and struggle even with map bosses.
You can also be a great mapper and yet struggle with Sanctum (or Ultimatum, the one where you can’t get hit).
You can be great with delirium and suck at ritual.
Not all challenges are the same.
Yes. In everything except that one mechanic. Which was added to please another type of player.
Ideally, as you develop a game, you want to add stuff that appeals to a broader audience as well. PoE failed in this. They added 30 mechanics over the years and almost all of them targetted the hardcore playerbase.
If they had added some other mechanics (since mechanics are parallel in nature in PoE) that were more casual friendly, they’d have a broader audience by now. Where each type of player would do content that appealed more to them.
It’s what D4 is trying to do now (maybe too late by now), by trying to add content that appeals to a not so casual playerbase, while keeping the casual mechanics around.
Then you pick the one that appeals the most to you and ignore the other ones.
This I totally agree with. Either that or place their minimum requirement accordingly.
Ok, so what you actually want is to create a new RMT category for boss carries so people can unlock being able to buy stuff? Which, btw, is a real thing in WoW.
Adding a requirement where people have to play in a group only pisses players off. They were pissed off in D4 and that only gave 10% extra XP.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
The only thing I can think of that would fit that statement is that you shouldn’t gate a playing skill mechanic behind a trade skill. Which you also shouldn’t, obviously.
Unless you mean that the ability to trade shouldn’t allow you to be able to do mechanics that you don’t have the skill for. In which case it was poorly worded and it’s also true. Also non-existent.
If I can’t do Uby and buy a Shattered Worlds, I still can’t do Uby.
No. The issue hence is that the top 1% of players that were the ones providing Uby items to the market stop doing so because it’s no longer profitable.
Because the only thing that this will achieve is to reduce demand. The supply stays the same, because the same people that did Uby can still do Uby. But now everyone that doesn’t do Uby just doesn’t want one because they can’t have one.
So you have the same supply and much less demand. Prices plummet, it’s not profitable anymore. Which means most of the Uby farmers now start farming the next best thing. And they flood the market with those items instead.
So we now have affordable red rings and ravenous voids for everyone instead, while Uby items are exclusive to the top 1%.
Where are you raising the lower ranks? All your measures so far have a huge impact on the bottom 99% while having little impact on the top 1%.
Players that could now get Uby items if they farmed them enough are gated from getting them, the top 1% simply shifts to farming something else.
You’re actively lowering the lower ranks by a lot while just lowering the upper ranks a bit.
I mean, that is the literal definition of it. In an utopia, everyone is equal. There is no individual property, only the community property. So if the community is rich (meaning they have more than their needs), everyone is rich.
Unachievable because of human nature, but that is what an utopia is, as first described by More.
Except you can’t do bossing services in LE, since there’s no way to pay the carrier. So what happens is that we get bossing services via RMT instead.
In that case they’d be more likely to not buy either. Or buy the good sci-fi story that is being sold for 10€.
No. It would go “I want to make a meme build with Stealth, the most worthless item in the game. I’m sure that a 2LP won’t cost more than 1M anyway, so let’s check the market. 1M for 0LP? Screw that, I’ll wait until they drop while I make other builds.”
They do. And they also reject way more than they publish. Because it’s not profitable.
Which is why you now have several digital services that will allow you to publish your books yourself (digitally, of course) because it doesn’t have any costs and thus can be sold for 0.1€ if they want and still make a profit.
You know, kinda like steam. Do you think Steam would benefit from a policy that states that games can’t be sold for less than 10€?
Do you think dev studios would benefit from it?
Do you think players would?
And if all games cost at least 10€, do you think anyone will buy Milford Heaven II, currently being sold for less than 3€, when they have literally thousands of better games for 10€?
Because, as you pointed out many times before, what applies to physical products often doesn’t apply to digital ones. And trade in a game is definitely digital.
So measures that are good for one are sometimes not good for the other.
Yes, just like the steam example above.
What happens is that the item disappears entirely from the market. And that outlier player who actually wanted to buy one has none available.
You don’t. You have someone who might buy them once a year for fun. Even without a floor, there would be loads of Stealth boots not being sold even for 5k.
But no one likes feeling taken advantage of. And having to pay an extremely higher price than they’re worth pisses people off. So they don’t.
There are only 2 reasons why anyone would buy Stealth boots:
1- They want to make something fun out of them.
2- They are much cheaper than better alternatives so you buy them instead.
Your measure effectively prevents the second one from happening by making them more expensive.
While severely hampering (or outright preventing as well) the first one because of player perception of their value.
Yes. Again, you’re hampering the lower players, not the top ones. If they just want a crappy item to get them started, now it’s more expensive. Because a crappy T7 health costs 2k now and it would cost 1M afterwards.
So they could gear up with crappy items to get started for 20k, now they need 20M.
All your measures just hurt the casual players. For the top players, it’s business as usual.
Which, for Stealth, it is. 1M is too much.
If someone asks me 100€ for a snickers bar, I’ll tell them to fuck off. I could easily afford it. I would never buy it. I’d always tell them to fuck off. I’d rather buy a mars bar instead.
This is a similar situation. I could have 1B gold. I see Stealth selling for 1M I’ll tell them to fuck off.
I clearly did. Because this particular tangent started with you saying that there is no choice in builds because VK was stronger and then it was beastmaster.
But even for each of those masteries, there are several builds available. And several variations for each.
So even if you go by the extremely limited Abomb definition of viable, you still have choices.
In fact, it started with you stating that if EHG were to do the faction multiclass option everyone would always choose MG12 or CoF12 because EHG implements things in a way where there’s no choice.
But if that were true, like you are trying to imply with the builds, then every single person would play the same single build with the same items and same passive/skills in 1.3.
And clearly this wasn’t the case, even for competitive players. There were still lots of different builds being played (with primordials, probably even more variety than previously).
So no matter how much you try to twist it, it’s just not true.
In settlers, 24% of players were using lightning strike. That’s pretty much 1 in 4. Does that mean that PoE doesn’t have options?
You’re once again trying to hyperbolize a situation way beyond reality just to try to prove a point.
It’s not unfeasible. It’s just inherently viewed as unfair and bashed upon by the players which will leave to literally any other game that doesn’t have that restriction.
Look at it this way:
I can’t beat Uby. I also can’t buy Uby items. So I really have no incentive to play MG at all.
If I don’t really care if I don’t trade, then I’ll just play CoF instead. If I have to beat the content myself, I might as well have better drops while trying it.
If I really love trading, the I’ll just leave and go play another game that doesn’t have this restriction.
Those are public safety restrictions. Same for weapons. Not applicable.
Much like you can’t buy many pharmaceuticals without a prescription. Also for the same reason.
Sure, but those items are not in the market anyway. So not applicable.
Again, only if that product isn’t in the general market. So not applicable either.
The first example would only be applicable if you could sell something that would delete other player accounts, which is ridiculous in this context.
The other two would only be applicable if there were private markets in the game. Which there aren’t.
So none of those examples has any relevance to the situation of the game and the changes you think are so good.
Obviously. It’s like saying that I can sell my computer to a friend, so I’m limiting everyone from buying it, when my computer isn’t even on the market.
This isn’t a restriction from the market, it’s a restriction from a private sale.
It’s obviously no. The statement obviously translates into “In theory it would be a yes, but in practice it’s a no”. Is this an english parsing issue?
It’s not.
Your premise was:
I highlighted the relevant parts.
If the first part was upheld (which is wasn’t, you said so yourself you’d still need to do it once a season) it might be a theoretical yes.
But since it’s still nerfing the bottom players, in practice it’s a no, because I don’t accept increasing inequalities.
Changes should affect everyone equally within the same group, so that everyone has an equal chance to compete. If your premise violates that, then it’s always a no.
You actually didn’t, because one of the base premises was doing the content only once, even with seasons (similar to what D3 did with campaign skip).
So since that doesn’t uphold, the yes wouldn’t either.
Yes, but the main problem here is that it’s not an equal nerf to everyone. Some players are more nerfed than others. And players don’t like that.
It’s not. It also applies to PoE. I got my regular endgame gear in PoE. It’s content everyone can do, so it has the same market as now. I nerfed myself by not being able to use the better unique jewels.
Currently I could still keep playing and chase 3 voices or watcher’s eye.
With your system, I have no chance of getting them and I already have the best gear I can get, since everything else is gated. So I leave.
And this applies to every uber drop, every delve/sanctum/ultimatum drops (because I don’t like that content, so I’m not going to do it), etc.
I become extremely limited in what I can wear for my build. Some of my favorite builds I can’t even do. So instead I leave. And most likely not return.
Yes. For the 0.0001% it was great. For everyone else it was a terrible one. That’s why it’s a gambling scam.
What you just said is equivalent to this:
I say “Russian roulette is a game where people die”.
And you reply “The winner is definitely alive.”
It has everything to do with your example, unless you want to shift goalposts again.
You said an example of poor people not valuing money was buying lottery tickets.
I countered that the only reason they did that is because they’re scammed into believing it’s a good use of their money.
They still value their money a lot. They were just tricked into spending it on something that is mostly useless.
Yes, I will go off the rails, because you keep saying things in a context and then removing that context when I reply to you.
The whole thing was about poor people not valuing money as much as rich people. And you said that if they valued money more they would have more of it.
Following that up with “People which know how to save money and use this knowledge have more money related to those in similar positions then them.”. Implying that people that save money value money more. Which just doesn’t relate at all.
I’m not. I’m going from the apect that every game will always have content that a large portion of the playerbase can’t do. It doesn’t matter if it’s Uby or if it’s another mechanic that I can’t handle. The principle is the same.
I can make a bosser in PoE and do just fine. I did do one in Heist and was even offering carries. (I don’t know if I could have built that without the boss items, though).
I can’t, for the life of me, play Sanctum. I hate it. I don’t have the skill or the patience to watch my positioning all the time. Even in PoE2 I would only get the ascendancy after a dozen tries, despite being overleveled.
So if my build requires a Sanctum item, I’m effectively gated out of it because I’m not going to do it.
Same goes for delve and a few other mechanics.
And, something that just occurred to me, there is also another important point which we haven’t discussed yet because it’s not applicable to LE yet:
If I want an item from the Sanctum boss, not only do I have to play Sanctum, I have to play it for lots of hours until I beat the boss.
Currently LE is very linear in that regard. You can just go to a dungeon and the boss is at the end. You go to the arena and the bosses are there at the end. Usually you don’t take more than 10 minutes to reach the boss and you’re done.
Aby is a bit different, since you first need to beat the 10 harbingers, so it’s already a bigger stretch.
And the more content LE adds, the worse this will become. And god forbid they ever add a mechanic with its own currency which you need to farm to get to the boss.
In an ARPG? None. There is no reason to gate an item in the market ever.
Either the item is available at all times or it isn’t available at all.
I would sooner agree to you suggesting that Uby items can’t be sold at all than I would that you need to do the content to be able to buy them.
Well, I also don’t think that unique rewards from side-mechanics should be freely accessible, as shouldn’t be items which are beyond the achieved drop-limit of your area. If you implement something like that it needs to be universal or it becomes uneven in total, with odd cases happening where it provides upsides/downsides which wouldn’t be there otherwise.
So yes, it has merit… but it’s separate. It’s also a reason why I urge more for progression-based side-mechanics rather then those which provide everything at once. It allows longevity for the game which is lacks.
And a access restriction enforced longevity where it could be skipped.
I don’t see trade inherently as a ‘advance beyond your means’ mechanic, because that would entail that I see it as a inherent unfair advantage.
I see trade as a mechanic which is solely expected to reduce or outright avoid repetition to already once finished content of any kind. A progression enabler simply rather then a progression skipper.
First off: For that preconditions need to happen. The foremost one is ‘your core audience is pleased with the product they have’ and hence it opens up the ability to expend resources for other areas, broadening the type of players using the product.
If you faul to adhere to the general there then you piss your players off and you got a double-pronged issue at hand. At one side a non-established alternative playerbase which might or might not work out and at the other side a pissed off established playerbase where you lost your goodwill.
Only when it’s upheld you can do it, and LE didn’t uphold it, hence it’s a premature and/or worngly positioned mechanic for the time being.
In other circumstances as mentioned… I would agree.
No, that’s what you suggested.
I just put it in relation to each other.
If ‘x’ is fine and happens then you can provide ‘x’ somewhere else as well and it would be fine if done the same way.
But ‘x’ is not fine seemingly and hence shouldn’t be provided as a pillar of a argument, unless specific sub-parts of it are specifically talked about which don’t have those underlying issues or alternatives which would avoid the issues it has.
If you cannot ever limit the market because of content then you cannot ever limit the content because of a market.
This means when you cannot cause a market to have restriction to enforce usage of contant in a personal manner then if you have a market you cannot restrict items to be only usable in a personal manner.
That’s putting it on the same level.
Clearly it exists though, hence the switcheroo also is a possibility to exist as those underly the same base rules.
It would lower in amount but not stop. Also upheaval of lower rungs means those which are at the brink of beating Uberroth now would be able to do so, barely, hence being a new target audience for your sales.
And yes, I get what you mean, but still… this isn’t a issue when you have your content properly adjusted accordingly to the skill level of your audience.
And if you include content which is to only be beat by a miniscule fraction of players then it shouldn’t be possible to trade it at all. Those things are supposed to provide a personal boasting situation. And since nothing would be beyond that type of content there is no inherent need to create value outside of the personalized reward provided.
As explained related to market fluidity.
In a utopia everyone is happy. Nothing states everyone is equal there. That would go counter to everyone achieving happiness actually.
Hence it’s a utopia as it cannot be reached.
The definition of utopia is ‘A player in which everything is perfect’.
As for the ‘everyone is rich’: no… nobody is rich then. Richness is defined by ‘having substantially more then others’. Compared to a serf in the middle ages most people in severe poverty nowadays are better off, they would comparably count as ‘rich’. But under modern standards they are not. And we compare each other to the respective social position of people around at the current time, which causes extra stress besides the inherent stress of existantial worries.
Nobody is rich in a utopia… and nobody needs to be either.
Depending on the type of game: Yes.
As much as policies limiting what can be sold, or how much things can be sold for, putting an end to ‘AAA’ companies trying to sell 100+€ games, or 200+€ games for a 3 day early access as example.
Regulation is generally a good thing up to where it starts to become stifling.
Any avenue where a system would break of not regulated needs to be regulated.
Any avenue where a system can be exploited needs to be regulated.
Regulations need to be done optimally in such a way to limit the proper use-case in the most miniscule way possible.
Lack of market fluidity demands a form of action, because the fluidity isn’t solely based on low player count but overall market setup.
Hence either the market setup needs to change or the free market options regulated to be not a free market anymore.
This is the unrealistic situation, it’s not what reality showcases when it happens.
The turnover rate is low but not zero, hence there is supply available.
If the supply is nigh completely removed and people actually have any form of demand (which every single unique has no matter which) then those few which randomly list one will realize ‘it’s gone surprisingly quick’ and hence list them again.
A market regulates itself in that way.
It’s utter nonsense to think supply would go to ‘0’. The exception is when the price outpaces available funds of potential buyers significantly. Because even if something costs 20 times more then what you would need to comparatively invest to get it yourself… it still would’ve buyers as then the question is between ‘Having it now? Or having it later for cheap?’ and convenience trumps nigh every other reason to a substantial degree.
The market state shows that’s not reality. So denied again.
There seems to be a substantially higher turnover rate then ‘1 in a year’. By many many magnitudes.
I estimate 50-100 per month for 0 LP. Might only be 20 too… but not below 20, that would be a very odd thing to be seen.
Or the reason of ‘they’re missing in my collection’, or the one of ‘those have a better roll then those in my collection’. Or the reason of ‘I wanna gamble on getting 2 LP ones as those are extremely highly priced on the market and then I have em already when I need em’.
Kinda more then ‘2’. Especially the last one is a thing people tend to do when they don’t have any meaningful stuff available on the market for them.
Oh come on… the type of acquisition difficulty you’re talking about there isn’t a 1 mil item, it’s vastly below in flooring.
Including your ‘single common T7 Affix’ example, which shows me you got no clue in understanding how to actually create such a system in the first place as you’ve either not thought about it, aren’t willing to think in detail about it or don’t have the capability to do so. One of those three. Pick your poison.
Why the heck would a T7 health be 1 Mil, hrmm? From where do you get that? It’s a gradual rising situation and hence every step along the line won’t be a substantial increase.
The natural state is gradual improvement anyway, hence gradual acquisition of currency as well as gradual exchange of equipment. So by the time you reach a expensive item you’ll have gone very likely through a decent chunk of the former progression through the market anyway. Youl’ll have acquired and will still acquire a relatively steady revenue.
To be very fair here this is not quite clear actually.
Retention in 1.3 was low and itemization has gotten a major change, which is after all throwing balance completely overboard as we’ve seen in.
This means unlike before we don’t see stabilized builds which are proven being played as much since people establish for a substantial time which builds fit with the new narrative of the game.
As time goes on this will reduce substantially again I imagine, but short term I agree it was a very very positive thing.
It was a severe imbalance and was called out substantially.
Such a heavy leaning to a single build isn’t supposed to happen after all, it showcases that balance was screwed up in some way. And well… it definitely was during settlers.
For a single Cycle or League it’s manageable to have that. ‘Got a badly handled one, it’s fine’. But if it is a repeating thing then it is actually a detriment.
For 2 reasons.
The first is that those which would want a bit of variety often choose the more powerful option since it’s so severely more.
And the second is that those which don’t care about chasing stuff are pissed off anyway as their situation substancially changes up and down heavily between Cycles.
Both of those types are with a high percentile the ‘forever players’. One for simply playing on endlessly and not caring (but being affected which is annoying) and the other for trying to be efficient as they got grand goals (and hence deeming the option of taking a substantially weaker build not feasable, which would be the case if the rift wasn’t so big).
But I get what you wanna say there. Obviously options exist. But as usual they’re not well handled if you got one option - or a specific sub-segment of the game - which is just severely better. Same issue as the campaign and a alternative option… it’s not a good choice if one is substantially superior to the other.
Ahhh, now I get where the stuff you’re talking about comes from.
The point of MG is not only to acquire boss-items though, is it? It’s a small fraction of the function but at the basis it’s ‘acquire things which empower your character’. As the absolute basis. Because otherwise we wouldn’t need to buy those items. Well… besides the other reasons, but that’s at least the main one.
We still got exalted items. Base uniques, set items, experimental items. Idols, champion affix exalteds and so on.
You’re not universally hindered at progression through it, those specific items are a miniscule aspect of empowering the character in the total scheme of game mechanics after all.
After all, universally in a game to beat content you’re supposed to beat it with the means acquired before the content.
Your statement though says ‘either it needs to be fully available or not at all’.
This is a instance of neither, it’s a in-between. It is available on the market but only with a precondition. Regularly ones which are universally available as well, hence ‘it’s on the market but not accessible until unlocked’.
A prime example of that would be gift shops from zoos for example. You need to pay the entry fee to even get access, and obviously since it’s a normal shop besides being behind a toll-gate basically it absolutely applies.
That argument doesn’t make much sense though.
There’s a good amount of publicly available examples as well.
Minimum limits for orders (taking the extra costs which applies for the delivery fee could be simply a viable option for the customer) or for example a bank only allowing a account to be opened with a minimum limit of money being put in are falling fairly clearly into this category.
Now, for sure another thing about ‘but the reason is…’ yeah… obviously there’s a reason for all of those examples to exist.
But they go beyond the base premise you provided, which is ‘either it’s universally available or not at all’ and clearly without even having to think about it… breaks that premise. If a precondition applies it shouldn’t exist with the logic you provided, otherwise it would after all not have a clear-cut excuse available why it wouldn’t be a bad thing in itself.
And you went in and did exactly as I imagined you’ll do, providing reasons why it isn’t applying… which have nothing to do with the base premise, hence they’re circumstances not applicable for the core reasoning.
Those inequalities would solely be created through personal skill.
Which is inequality of outcome.
Equality of outcome is not something to strive towards, it’s a universally bad thing to happen. It takes away any form of merit and is a detestable goal by design.
Equality of opportunity though is something to strive towards, and that is not affected. Quite the contrary, everyone has the opportunity to beat the boss and unlock the option, it is solely based on their personal capability.
Where did you get that idea? That has never been the case, is not the case and will never be the case either.
You cannot create a egalitarian system of any kind without it being inherently unfair, because people are not the same. Hence to make a functioning system you have to give people the same starting line… but the end-line is up to their pure abilities.
Anything else fails by design, there has been no instance in history where such a system functioned, neither in reality nor in a game. All of those system have severe issues which get more severe as time passes, needing regular resets in some manner to function properly.
In for example PoE we see this ‘reset’ by implementing a higher ceiling to strive towards to ensure the issues never grow big enough to actually take hold in a serious manner. This is the reason why by now people opt out prematurely to a relatively large amount because it has become ‘overwhelming’.
Comparatively ‘Warframe’ doesn’t have this issue as the old systems still exist, others expand the game sideways mostly, not upwards. That’s why that game has been going strong without any major issues since… well… ever.
So you’re right everyone should’ve a equal chance to compete which means it’s not allowed to sustain itself in a new Cycle since that would be against competition. I dunno where you managed to twist it that a universally applying system which is the same for everyone without making discernments is ‘unfair’ in that regard, but what you’re now arguing for is not keeping that up.
Your argumentation actively breaks the premise you say you wanna uphold actually.
Why? To uphold the premise people not having ever beat any content hence shouldn’t have access to said content in ANY manner. And that’s not what we see currently. If you were to uphold that premise my option actually is the wanted one as it removes the option to bypass, hence a unequal chance of competing.
Because if you wanna compete at even grounds you need to be able to deal with the same things as everyone else. So to compete for the top-end builds you need to beat Aberroth and Uberroth as they have the top-tier items. In your mind that’s for some reason twisted into the opposite.
Which wouldn’t be fair for a competitive environment.
Much like it’s not fair to have the Scion in poE be unlocked once per account rather then once more Season. It’s unfair competition wise towards new players.
Same in our cases. If you have the ability to buy a item because you did something a Cycle ago then in the premise of the new Cycle you have a unfair advantage comparatively to other players.
This is to be avoided.
And as for the direct situation. If you beat Uberroth and hence get items from beating him then it’s unfair if people not beating it have access as well. There is no discernment made if you achieved it yourself or by being unable to and simply bashing your head long enough against the wall until it crumbles.
A good system always provides rewards solely achieved through personal effort compared to people which don’t put in said effort.
This is not upheld in LE currently.
It is in PoE comparatively though! If you kill the bosses (the core bosses) then you gain their orbs, those orbs cannot be bought, they can only be gained in your own content. Hence the content retains value even if you can buy/sell those items freely.
In LE this is not the case, Uberroth doesn’t ‘unlock’ anything it only has the items it grants, and hence any merit for beating Uberroth as MG is non-existent. The only reason why you would do it is to get paid for by others, your personal achievement though is effectively worthless in any form of general visual indication.
It’s the same issue when you can buy top-end stuff in a game with money or you acquire it through personal effort. Buying it with money is worthless, hence achieving it personally since it cannot be discerned is worthless outside of internal perception (which is quite weak for most people). External perception inherently deems it as ‘you might not have done it personally’ so to achieve this perception (the ‘boasting rights’, very important for perceiving success in a MP titles) you would need to showcase it off to every individual you’re telling it you’ve done so, or make it publicly visible in some way to refer to. You have to ‘go the extra mile’.
Not?
Does someone need to do it twice rather then once?
Seems rather even to me.
What? Someone needs to kill the boss more then once?
Never stated.
So no, factually wrong.
If we talk about ‘some classes cannot do it realiably’ then that’s not a issue of that system but the underlying balance which disallows it to happen.
What you hence do isn’t arguing related to the root cause, you’re talking against something causing a symptom. Hence based on correlation, not causation.
Argue related to the causals if you wanna argue.
Did you?
Imagine you’re the first one arriving that stage of the game. How does that person do it? Are they ‘nerfed’ because they have no access to stuff yet because others aren’t providing it?
No, they are the first to be those providing it instead.
Which is also factually wrong.
Otherwise you would get that stuff.
Or how do you think do the first ones arrive in the market? Something making it magically appear?
Hence those people also didn’t have access to it. How did they do it?
Yep, it does.
And it’s a needed system if you don’t provide any upsides to doing that content personally as you hence only have reason to do it based on financial merit, not on personal achievement.
Hence until a respective amount is available which makes it close to unfeasable to be done personally it either needs universally unlocks applied which provide solely personal power which isn’t possible to trade. And only when this isn’t applying anymore you can forego this type of system.
It’s the same with the blessing system. You canno exchange blessings, hence getting them is a enforced personal achievement. That is a good thing. Hence potentially those items also don’t need to be limited as you’ve got a alternative source of personal rewards.
Same with being able to put nodes down through the weaver tombs. Or the re-rolling of attributes when finishing that type of content.
And that’s why the boss-nodes in the weaver tree needs distinct unlocks attached to em.
It’s kinda like the 40 league specific tasks in PoE, but universally applicable. Hence the same as the orb gathering there, or the increasing of the map-slots in the device, or the unlocking of unveiled crafting options, or the unlockable atlas tree passives.
That’s why in PoE Alva was a long long time personalized. Harvest crafts also were, and Heist had a progression system (which gets removed this upcoming League). Because there wasn’t enough in place to have a personal unlock in place. And as content increases in amount you remove those things gradually to allow a general timeframe to be upheld to ‘unlock everything’.
This is the same situation. EHG either needs to limit market access or provide a alternative personal achievement related to their content, because that’s nigh universally missing, they stopped at Blessings and never kept up implementing it accordingly with new introduced content, making everything ‘meaningless’. Nothing to strive for outside of ‘number go up’ which isn’t holding the majority of people long-term.
I mean… is the statement wrong?
It indeed is the case.
No, I spoke about the lottery winners and not the players.
You got the topic quite wrong there.
Nobody gives a shit about the gambling stuff before when that’s already done and not relevant anymore hence.
It’s about usage of the winnings.
By your argumentation line universally people with money generate more money.
A lottery winner though has money.
Lottery winners are percentile-wise the biggest group having absolute poverty applied to them though.
If you have 1 mil €… are you in poverty? No.
So there has to be a reason why those 1 mil € are gone after all.
And that is how it’s used.
Which was a sole example of countering your going off the rails when I stated that a good chunk of people which are poor are so because of poor decisions. You yelled about and were offended with that statement despite it being a factually true one, pushing it towards ‘when you cannot save up money…’ which I never included in the premise anyway, hence once again… wrong topic.
Nope, it wasn’t.
And hence here lies the problem with it already.
You solely perceived something despite it being written in a way which hasn’t to be said out specifically.
Here:
First you made an assumption. The only people which removes anyone else from consideration.
Hence already factually wrong. But when we are lenient then we can say the actual meaning was ‘most’.
Which also is factually wrong.
To be plain here:
The percentile of people which squander money and are rich are vastly less (outside of those inheriting it or winning it, which are the core exceptions) likely to ‘throw it away’. Hence meaning they are unlikely to use it in ways which aren’t directly with intention of merit.
The highest percentile of people squandering money are those which are already either in middle-class or in low-class income situations.
The reason for that is obvious as well:
To get rich you need to have both luck and ability.
Luck to get opportunities.
Ability to not squander those opportunities.
Many many people get opportunities, though the fewest opportunities in life are realized. Either by not realizing it was a opportunity (lack of knowledge related to perception) or by actively using the opportunity wrong (lack of knowledge in relation to ability).
Obviously without opportunities you won’t get in the position in the first place.
That led to:
Which above is the explanation of that reasoning. Which made you go off the rails lacking to understand the reasoning immediately rather then sitting down and pondering ‘why might that person say that?’ in the first place.
Which led to:
Which wasn’t said.
Neither was ‘valuing it’ given as a premise (you added that) nor was it ‘priviledged talk’ as it’s solely a systemically analyzation of the reasoning of why that might be the case.
Also it was never excluding cases which were in actual dire straits outside of their responsibilities. And nor was it excluding cases which were in dire straits because they have no related knowledge.
It was solely a statement that the chance for someone to stay poor is high because they are prone to not take opportunities presented to them. The reasoning for the precise situations not stated, it was a general statement hence which doesn’t vicitimizes people nor falsely raises them on a pedestal. It’s neutral.
You clearly took that quite harshly instead.
Also you followed up with:
This is insulting to everyone which had built something up by acquiring knowledge and skills. Not doing ‘hard work’ but by taking the opportunities presented in life and squandering them.
Obviously bad actors exist, and are plenty… but that’s related to people high on the corporal ladder being prone to being sociapaths or psychopaths with a vastly increased percentile. Because you’re absolutely right that this is a side-effect of the setup of Capitalism, since competitiveness is based in a high percentile correlation to egoism it means that a outstanding percentile of bad actors are in the topmost positions.
Those entail a fraction of ‘rich’ people though, which is defined by a non-specific amount of liquid assets. Commonly referred to by being 1 million Dollar formerly when it was tried to be defined, though nowadays it’s led to being over 2 million Dollar.
A common definition of being rich is ‘to not having to work until the end of your lifetime’, which we can math out depending on age even.
Which led to my argumentation of trying to convey that the vast majority of applicable people has more then 0€ of capital which is non-perfectly used. A obvious thing to state.
Cheaper brand. Better planning. Planning of when food goes off to have lesser costs. No usage of any non-essential payments of any kind. Energy savings where possible. Knoweldge of average lifetime of products to use the cheapest ones in relation to time, not to initial cost. And so on and so forth… Unless you want to state that everyone which has little mones uses that little money in a absolutely flawless manner. Which is obviously nonsensical.
Hence why I wrote:
Because it is a given. If you cannot accept that as a premise then you’re a lost case, you’re delusional.
Are you delusional or are you able to accept reality at least?
So?
That’s obvious. A large portion of the playerbase are average joes which are below the skill-level to beat the campaign of D3 or D4 as well.
That’s a given with nigh any product, the largest amount of users will be those which have no ability to know the position of their own ability.
Hence by design trying to avoid this would mean the game has to become easier then D3/D4 in totality. Which is obviously not the case.
You pick a target-audience and you create your product according to them. And the ones below that level have to deal with it.
If you try to make it universal then it goes ad absurdum by design. I mean… where exactly is the limit in such a case? The ‘average joe’ nobody specifically knows the exact skill level from? Someone actually targeted by the product as ‘a player which can beat D3/D4 without major issues but struggles severely with progressing in PoE based on skill’? Or is it as far down as to include a amputee which is missing an arm? Or a paraplegic which has no usage of them at all?
Where exactly is the limit here? That’s important.
My statement of the example above with ‘a player which can beat D3/D4 without major issues but struggles severely with progressing in PoE based on skill’.
Hence all the core content needs to be designed with them in mind, up until the quantity of content is so much that realistically finishing it is only possible for a very very small percentile of those players anyway… hence allowing the ability to branch out to make the target-audience broader.
Yep, true.
But LE doesn’t have those types of content yet now, does it?
The premise always was mechanical bosses. They are the core gameplay style included.
If it had a myriad of puzzles then you wouldn’t argue ‘people should be able to skip the puzzles’ after all. It would make no sense. It’s in the core premise after all.
‘Blasting mobs interjected by mechanical bosses repeatedly.’
If it would include for example Delve, Heist, Sanctum, Blight or any of those things… then I would agree.
But it doesn’t.
And those types of content are only supposed to haven when the core gameplay is solid and sufficing as a standalone already. Which it isn’t.
Nono. I never made any conditions.
I solely asked ‘Which reason is there to gate an item?’ Without anything conditional attached to it.
When can you gate a item. Period. No strings attached, that’s the whole question, excluded from everything told here, standing alone, by itself, as a question out of the void.
I hope re-iterating it so many times makes the exact frame of the question clear enough.
I’m going to give up on this discussion, since it’s leading nowhere. But I am going to address a few things. This is one because it’s clearly wrong,.
Rich means existing in plentiful quantities; abundant. You don’t need to have more than other people. You just need to have more than your needs.
So if everyone has more than their needs, everyone is rich.
Having much more than others was a meaning added afterwards, mostly for social reasons. But the core definition is simply abundant.
I will also address this.
The market state shows that the 0LP that was put to sale 3 days ago is still there (listed for 20k). No other Stealth was put in the market since then (I’ve been checking). 0LP or otherwise.
So you’re completely wrong there.
But you can log in and go buy them to prove me wrong.
They’re not. Only people that don’t know better list them, and they’re not being sold.
The point of MG is to help you with your progression.
If there’s a point in your progression where MG can’t help you anymore, then you either don’t play MG or you stop playing until next season because you reached the cap on MG progression.
You use MG until you get your legendaries/exalts. Next step is getting Uby items to min-max your character.
Right now you can now start farming towards Uby items. It will keep you around.
With this change, there’s no point in farming anymore. You can’t progress with trade. So you either leave or you simply don’t use MG at all in the future.
You mean like in PoE? Because no one would stop playing if you did that there.
Getting Uby items will not make your build suddenly be able to do Uby. It will help those that are on the cusp of doing so. It won’t help those that can’t do it.
It’s not. Everything is gated. I have to do that content to unlock it. I don’t like doing that content (especially long ass content like PoE’s where you have to farm for hours or weeks until you can finally fight the boss). So instead I leave. That was my whole point which you keep missing.
But I won’t keep discussing this issue or the rest of the ongoing stuff. It keeps shifting and goalposts as well and some of the stuff pisses me off.
EHG has more than enough viewpoints between the 2 of us to make up for the whole playerbase.
But that’s only the case - again - because Uby is in the nonsensical balancing state as it is.
In a proper position it would be that when you acquire your legendaries/exalts you hence get the respective power for your character to actually beat Aby/Uby, so you wouldn’t be stuck hence unlike if you do it in this mess of a state.
I mean… the mechanic itself wouldn’t be a negative or positive to implement, it would only become so because of the state of the game, and you’re right that currently in the mess the game is in that it wouldn’t bode well.
And as stated, the alternative is personalized unlocks of some kind to happen. One major aspect of doing content is getting something from it… why should you kill Uberroth when you already got everything Uberroth has to give? It’s a self-defeating situation after all. If you struggle heavily to beat the boss you won’t be in a position to farm it for profit anyway. But to get into a position where you don’t struggle you would need to heavily invest and struggle to become skilled enough with the fight to overcome that and make it reasonable. Just not worth it in most cases.
Yeah, but you provide as examples content which are substantially different from the core gameplay loop.
If you don’t like killing loads of mobs… you gotta agree that LE is not for you.
And if you don’t like beating mechanical bosses… you also gotta agree that LE is not for you, not with the prevalence of them and mandating you to overcome them to progress.
And we don’t have any other type of content yet, hence that can be excempt from such a situation anyway as it would be unfitting… sideways content is applied to existing content and just broadening the experience, not pushing it further upewards (enough and you have to add something on top as power cumulates after all, but that’s along the way anyway).
If we wanna take it as a potentially existing situation then we need to take it also as the balancing accordingly for progression is fitting for the target audience. But it isn’t, so it won’t work until it is, you’re right with that.
You can like killing mobs and still not like the content. PoE is the best example of this.
Delve is kiling loads of mobs. But I dislike both the following the cart around and the darkness mechanic if you want to deep delve.
Sanctum is about killing loads of mobs. But I dislike the not getting it mechanic.
There isn’t any boss that you can’t overgear for. If you have a hard time killing bosses, you farm the bosses in lower corruption.
You only need to deal with Shade to keep pushing corruption. You can totally ignore the mono bosses.
Other than Shade, you can easily get gear to skip all boss mechanics for every boss except Uby. Which, with power creep, you’ll eventually be able to as well, down the road. As happens with every pinnacle boss in every live service game over time.
Delve is a permanent escort mission to be fair, while killing loads of mobs. It’s not at your own terms.
And sanctum is a rogue-like rework with quite few mobs. In PoE 1 there’s barely any inside, and even in PoE 2 the density is nigh non-existent.
Their core premise is not based upon being a ‘classic’ diablo-clone, which is ‘kill stuff and progress from loot’ with nigh nothing along with that. Well… besides the bosses, which have been established in this manner in D2 initially, being far less decisive in positioning back in D1.
Yeah, but given that the premise was content as a pinnacle challenge style that means by that time another boss of that style would be implemented if upheld.
And that would suck quite a lot. It’s the same situation as with uber-lilith in D4, which is after all nonsensical related to the game otherwise. Unfitting content simply which doesn’t align with the game at large.
I know not the right percentile, but I hope you get the premise there.