You have a long way to go young padawan…
At least it looks like people see that the name of the genre is more important then who get what loot… finaly 
.
1 Like
They repeatedly said they dont want to favor any form of gameplay over others. But then again, it’s not the first time they break promises, sooo…
Trade is a tool not gameplay. If they provide the right balance, a way for players to realize appropriate value for stuff they think is valueable but don’t want, and non game breaking alternate ways to get some items that rng has not otherwise provided. Then “trade” becomes moot.
Group gameplay vs single player
But hey, thanks for the vocabulary exercise.
What d you guys think about it?
Party play, like coop on those games are unrealistic to say the least the way the devs want to implement (Item Gifting system aka diablo 3 copy). People have their real life aspects: job, wife, children, friends, different time fuses, etc. A meeting to play it’s easier said than done. The game will still be the same solo experience we already have in majority of the cases. Now, that being said: What advantage? There is no advantage in a game without trade market. No trade, no competition. Why would you care about what other people item drops if it won’t affect you in any way?
Sad that they’re going to kill off MP before it’s even out. I would honestly hope that instead of killing trade fully they instead choose to never add an auction house and in turn allow trade. If someone doesn’t want to trade then allow them to choose solo which would be trade blocked.
I could be missing something but as long as the plan wasn’t to make solo a copy of PoE SSF then I don’t see why this can’t work. Both get what they want and both get multiplayer experience if they choose to. They already got masochist mode which could also just turn into PoEs SSF if it’s truly necessary.
There’s nothing exciting about being outperformed and restricted because you don’t have people to play with reliably. Trade allows a solo player to equalize that field.
They aren’t. Gifting is their first stab at squaring the circle that is free trade in a game with ssf-friendly drop rates. Its not a trivial challenge.
Just because a person doesn’t want to trade doesn’t mean they want to only play solo, there are middle ground options in between.
Solo/ssf isn’t an mp experience, it is, by definition, a solo experience.
Masochist is a very different beast to ssf though. In ssf the rules of the game are the same (except that you can’t join any parties, kinda like doing a physics degree tbh), masochist is actually more difficult in that mobs do more damage and you do less.
1 Like
But it does not equalize anything unless you restrict trade to just SSF players, which I’m sure those wanting trade for multiplayer would be very excited about 
S - Solo
SF - Self-Found
SSF literally means no grouping, no trading.
As far as I am aware, the name is specific to PoE, I don’t remember seeing it anywhere else.
Obviously, we could have modes where players group, but don’t trade. Or play solo, but trade.
But we would have to call them something else. 
2 Likes
I know of the gifting and it sounds horrible. Unless you can just invite anybody and gift anything from bank/inventory at any time without restriction. So if some guy gets an item I can use and I get something he wants we can trade, just under a different name which I’m fine with. But is it really going to be like that cause it didn’t sound like it?
As it stands solo only restricts banks so that is what I am referring to if they have said it will also mean only solo gameplay that isn’t stated anywhere easily accessible. So if it’s only been said out loud I’ve missed that.
For the game mode things I was just suggesting that they add a trading one, either through existing ones or new ones. Otherwise, why would I waste my time with MP? If you don’t have people to reliably play with consistently or at all, you are getting nothing from MP. The only reason I can think I would want to level and redo everything is so that I could do so more efficiently and get more out of my time spent.
I don’t see how allowing trade is bad I’ve seen zero issues with it in every game that had it ever. The only issue was PoE and LE already solved that by not having 90% RNG crafting.
Especially if playing in a group will give speed advantage, survival advantage, damage boost, faster clear, and higher drop rates/amounts. I may be wrong here too, but I assume when 1 person dies not everyone loses their loot either. Unlike the solo player who can’t trade and loses his drops while running slower.
Unsure how to use this forum too well yet so I can’t quote directly but I tried to answer all replies.
Welcome on the forum then.
To quote, just select the text you want to quote and a “quote” button will magically appear above it.
1 Like
Unsure how to use this forum too well yet so I can’t quote directly but I tried to answer all replies.
You can quote by simply typing > before any sentence.
1 Like
No, that would be free trade.
It’s not that trading is “bad” per se, but unrestricted trading allows people to gear up much faster than they would through purely via mob drops, therefore devs tend to nerf drop rates to counter the increased ease of item acquisition via trade. Having unrestricted trade and ssf-friendly drop rates isn’t something that generally exists unless the devs are ok with having a time to get good gear that would probably be measured in minutes or hours of game time so they have to put restrictions on one or the other.
2 Likes
They are basically promoting playing in big groups, which is a net negative. You’d think after having years of seeing the weaknesses and strengths of other ARPGs they wouldn’t fail solo players.
With that said, I think the game is still really fun and has a ridiculous amount of potential. With THAT said, unfortunately if the Devs are smart, they realize they are stuck competing with D4 and PoE2 long term and they have no chance of winning that battle with basically the same dated graphics engine as Grim Dawn.
There are still an insane amount of bugs in this game that are gamebreaking, and would be completely obvious to any level dev to fix immediately. For example, there’s still a bug for 3 years now where you complete an Echo/map level and then you take your portal and it puts you back at the regular monolith waypoint… you lose your reward and bonus chest.
There are plenty of other bugs they have been aware of for years now, for example the Leaping Zombies node doesn’t work at all. There are countless other node interactions where they just don’t work or don’t increase damage like they say they do, and you are left handicapped. They’ve had years to fix these bugs and that brings me to my next point.
The way devs used to make games is dead. The new way to make games is put in barebones support work after gathering as much funding and purchases as you can, and then spreading out into 2, 3, 4 more projects. Unfortunately, that’s how games are made nowadays. They have data we don’t have access to, and it’s obvious that based on that data they have decided it’s better to invest in their next projects than to fix this game that they’ve already profited off of.
Summon Volatile Zombie was in the game for less than a year before they began focusing on multiplayer.
Edit: I forgot about this, but about your concerns with bugs, there are 2 dev comments in this thread that you might find informative.
That doesn’t require much in the way of cognitive actvity, just a bare bones awareness of the genre.
Why do you think they want to “win”? What does “win” even mean? Games aren’t a zero-sum, er, game. I play several different games over a few months & I don’t feel the need to get all tribal about any other game that may or may not be in the same genre as the ones I enjoy.
I’d also be surprised if D2/3/PoE/etc still have bugs in there that are years old, that is, sadly, how things go now (as you kinda say) but it’s not as bad as you make out. But you do you. And sometimes bugs are really hard to find & fix.
Some of us remember Diablo 2 launch - it was absolutely loaded with bugs, so I’m not so sure the old ways are as good as you think.
As for a general pattern with investment priorities, you’re correct that the way software development work is planned and prioritised has changed. This isnt limited to games, but applies to pretty much every software project the past 15 years.
I won’t speculate on the reasons here as it is hard to convey the complexities without it leading to accusatory language. Feel fre to invent your own reasons 
1 Like
If an hack and slay player is bored said player looks for the next hack and slay to play. They aren’t competing that much outside of players that are hardstuck in one game for whatever reason. All hack and slay players I know play 3 or 4 or 5 hack and slays each year. To me it’s simple if the Hack and slays are good the player numbers will fluctuate at every start of a fresh season. If the hack and slay is bad noone will care for it anyway ^^.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.