This is a pretty giant assumption. This is kind of tantamount to someone saying, “I know what the public thinks and it’s this…” when it’s simply confirmation bias. I keep stressing the fact that EHG has a pretty great (not perfect) track record on both communication and the fact that over and over and over again, in streams, in release notes, in Discord, the devs constantly say things like,
“we currently don’t have plans for that but nothing is off the table.”
“we’d like to get to that and it’s in the future we’re just not certain when we’ll get there.”
“nothing is written in stone.”
So in light of that, I don’t think the game is done cooking. We know the soup is an aRPG, and we see some of the different ingredients being put in the pot, but, there’s still stuff to be added.
DISCLAIMER: I feel like a broken record (@Llama8 and @Irrelevant would probably agree ) but these conversations always seem to get to the same place: the loud voices - on both far sides of the fence - just keep yelling into their bullhorns and it appears no one keeps their feet on the ground.
Seriously, how funny is it going to be if 0.95 comes around and EHG introduces ‘new and added’ aspects to sharing/trading and all these white knights who hate every aspect of trade come back to scream GAME IS DEAD. Then the current bunch of Doom and Gloomers will be like YOUR IDIOTS EGH is doing the best thing for the game. Suddenly we’re in some weird Freaky Friday incarnation.
Perception of a game being a competitor or successor to another game is as much an external viewpoint (ie, the community, media, etc) as it is an internal thing (the devs). If you’re making a game in a genre that has an incumbent (ie, the Diablo series, PoE for aRPGs, Civ for TBS, etc) then no matter what, your game will be viewed as an XXX-killer or the next XXX. Even if they devs didn’t want to make a PoE/D3/whatever “killer”, that’s what people would see it as & that’s the click-bait-y titles that would be used.
@CaiusMartius If the yoof of today knew what a record was (broken or otherwise), I’d agree. But wasn’t music recorded on wax cylinders back when you were our age?
Oh yeah. We do. I have the one that has a computer light dot that bounces back and forth between to upright lines. As long as you keep it between the lines you’re good. It’s a hoot and a real challenge.
The real funny part is that both extremes are Doom and Gloomers. One side is that the game will die without trade. While the other is that the game will die with trade. What it really boils down to is that one side wants trade, and the other doesn’t. But are using the 4 year-old debating tactic of hyperbole.
Some of us just want trade because MP has, literally, nothing else to offer. Others want it because they have more limited playtimes, and would like an additional method to acquire the items for their build(s), and have more fun playing the game. Personally, I’m not interested in making iFriends. I hate real people. Why dafuq would I want to interact with online people? Unfortunately, this is the avenue EHG’s decision has left me, if I want to get anything out of their MP offering.
Both sides are doing that, or at least, some on both sides.
Have you ever thought that maybe they aren’t actually real people? They could just be really sophisticated (or really ####ing dumb depending on how you look at it) ai.
I can confirm with 100% accuracy that I’m really ####ing dumb no matter HOW you look at it and I am not an AI. So @DirePenguin is probably trying to avoid “people” (this collective term has often been questioned if I should be allowed in it by those who meet me) such as myself.
That’s why I said the extremes on both sides were guilty of Doom and Gloom. I kinda figured the following sentence just inherited that mutual accusation
Only the people who like/want trade say “the game will die without trade” (or at least will get much less attention in the aRPG landscape.
The people who really like the solo/coop aspect don’t really think or say that the game will die with trade, they just don’t want this game to be something similar to a thing we already have most of the time.
I am in the camp of fully supporting the only group trade thing with no real economy. Even though I still think that a trade/economy would most likely bring more people and overall “success/mainstream attention” to the game.
I just don’t think a game needs to be as “successful as possible” by compromising on a certain vision/niche.
There are so many good games across various genres that put them selves in very niche genres, but on purpose.
I fully believe even without that potential overwhelming success of a trade econmy EHG will still have the necessary funds to make this thing outstanding in its own right.
Easy thing to say but at the end of the day both sides move in cycles and we get nothing new out of it because EHG isn’t moving an inch or transmitting life signs on the topic… not even an “We work on a statement.” or “We watch the debate closely.” and that’s the real Problem I think
The people who want some kind of a more indepth gifting system or trade on top or free trade brought up some valid arguments why they think trade is something good. People expressed their feelings why they think trade should be a thing (more or less helpfull tbh).
Same happens to the opposition and they told us why they are against trade and they expressed theri feelings and oppinions equaly (more or less helpfull).
Even if EHG says “We communicated our descission so stfu we are not intrested!” things would settle faster then EHG playing dead.
Among all the threads I think there were a lot of really good ideas and suggestions that arose from all of this.
While there are a lot of people that do the trench warfare and don’t move an inch on their opinion there is still a lot of good stuff out there.
Also a “we watch the debate closely” is something that is not really necessary, because EHG histrocially always watches the forum (and all other platforms) very closely
That is not how EHG did things histrocially and I don’t think they would start doing that now.
Even when internally they already know they won’t change anything in the foreseeable future, they would not call that out and drown all discussions.
Even on some of the most longwinded discussion topics like auto-loot or respec they only did some minimal compromise (min respec level and vacuum loot) and after that nothing for months/years even though discussiosn were still going hot.
I don’t know were EHG stands with all of the discussions that happened now after the announcement.
But I am very sure they already knew before doing that announcement, that things will go wild.
On one side EHG always wanted to work together with the community and doing a compromise that both sides are happy with would be one possible option.
On the other side I feel like just because those hot discussion immediately changing their plans also comes off as being weak and having no clear vision. (Catering to the community is not always the best for the game, because the community often does not have the whole picture).
But overall I am actually surprised how close the opinions are to a tie.
I personally feel like its 60/40 for trade, so there are more people that would want trade.
But when they initially did that announcement I would have though we get something like 70/30 or 80/20 for trade.
Whatever EHG’s logn term plans are I am almost certain that they will not have the time to do any major changes before 0.9.0 so we will most likely get the announced system and then we have to go from there.
Normaly yes but I think this topic deservs an expection because some people are unsettled by everything that happend and the holiday leave the devs took after dropping this “bomb” . That’s just my oppinion because I think sending no signal is the worst thing to do right now but then again everybody know writing a substentail answer may take weeks. Therfor a life sign of any kind would be nice.
I should’ve said this as well I just wanted to mimic a “discussion closed!” kind of scenario in non misunderstandable words ^^. EHG was always polite and very chill and they most likely stay that way.
It would be the best if they drown the discussion when they are setteled on something and want to carve it into stone. This topic is of some importance to me as you might have noticed and I simply want to get over with it because it starts to get tiresome to go in cycles with only so little constructive feedback from both extremes.
I hope this is not the case because if this is somewhat true I know what I do in the future ^^.
I talked about their vision in a lot of posts and people were angry about it. Just so you might remember… they announced their vision for the game on their kickstarter page and I ask myself where that vision went. Just picking the “vision” card when it suites someone is a bit bland.
I asked for the whole picture as well but still no answer from EHG. I asked for examples numbers and metrics so people can see what they talk about and have something substential and not a wall of text without any clear statement.
As I said in another post… it’s maybe 20-30% for and against trade and the rest of the players have no oppinion or no idea there is a debate on the topic because they don’t care. When it comes to the posts on this forum I don’t think it’s in favour of trade because mostly the same few vocal people make cycles ^^.
No matter how heated and emotional the answers in the trade sections have been I think everyone posses enough common sence to know such changes won’t come over night or in 0.9.0. All I want is an answer because if EHG say “We think gifting is enough and we don’t want any other systems in place or work on gifting!” I know what I’m in for but right now I’m simply confused and EHG looks like they might change their mind on each and every topic. That’s my problem thou and most likely not true but I’m unsure about them right now and I can’t help it.
Which clear vision should they be sticking to though? The one in the kickstarter where they envisioned an AH-like environment to trade gear for gold without trade overshadowing mobs as a source of loot, or their most recent post where they don’t want an economy? One could probably say that those to visions of trade are diametrically opposed.
I’m fine with the devs changing their minds as they iterate on stuff (because I’m an adult and I have kids so I know #### changes) while I can also be a bit disappointed that there’s not going to be an AH.
Just because a vision can be clear (“we want players to be able to trade with restrictions”) doesn’t mean that it can’t change for what they believe is the better (“we don’t think we can balance trade and drops in a way that doesn’t piss absolutely everybody off”, Trasochi goes into this at length in the paragraph before the section i quoted) but that’s not weakness. Nor does it mean that they might not be able to find an acceptable way to square the circle at some point in the future, remember how they said that it was impossible to gave +skills modifiers? Everything is impossible until its not.
I personally think this is the statement from EHG that everyone should use as a foundation for any discussion about it. “Do it justice.” They’re still trying to figure it out. I think it’s highly disingenuous (yeah, I realize that’s going to have the doom and gloomers come at me but it’s for the white knights as well) to think that what we currently have in this iteration is exactly what we’ll have at 0.95, let alone 1.0.
Looking forward to March. Because play will happen. People will have all kinds of questions. There will be the inevitable “SEE I TOLD YOU SO NYAH NYAH NYAH”'s (and, it shouldn’t need to be said, but apparently it does - that’s not picking WHICH side is saying it. ) But there will also be more hands on, more NEW thoughts, more ideas and LE will get to take those and run with 'em.
Thank you, Captain obvious. But if you actual read the sentences, you’d see that one group predicts the game dying WITH trade. Either from people being bored from getting stuff too easily, RMT, drop rates, botters or any of the other multitude of boogeymen that reside on the intrawebz, just waiting to destroy the hapless game that grants them entry, via trade.
You only think it would be compromising, because their current stance happens to align with your personal preference. I could just as easily say they compromised on their initial vision due to discussions/feedback from internal testers with your same philosophy, but just won’t come forward and admit that a select few users are impacting the course of the game. That’s really the only way I can justify them having such a drastic 180 degree pivot from their original plans/statements… without having even delivered anything outside their hand-picked internal testers.
I really wish that you were right in this instance. But practical experience has shown, time and again, that stances like this lead to them merely testing the waters, seeing how much blowback comes from it, and then adjusting from there. Meaning, if people who are going to quit, quit, and the resistance to this shitty iteration of ‘gifting’ stays, they may not see a need to change it because there’s not enough opposition left. “We have diverted our resources elsewhere…”
At my last job, we snarkily referred to this as “Phase 2” of any project. We’d leave out stuff we didn’t think users needed/wanted, in the initial roll-out, then would sit back and see what was bitched about the most. Usually, we never released a “Phase 2”, and just left our users with what we gave them in Phase 1.
Not sure were this hostility comes from but well.
You were talking aobut BOTH sides and me as obvious as I am said only one side is doing it.
But I think there is some misunderstanding here.
The term “the game will die” might be subjective.
What I wanted to point at is:
A lot of people who like trade and are upset with the recent announcement actually think the game will be less popular overall and might even “die” from not having enough success to sustain the game in the long run.
While a lot of the people in the no-trade camp do not really think the game will “die” from RMT, drop rates, botters etc. they just think that it will impact their own experience too much.
I personally never saw someone say the game will not be successful with trade.
There was already a CT who said he was suprised and that they didn’t have tested it to the extend EHG mentioned or want to make non CT’s belive at least if my english knowledge isn’t misleading me. So you might say CT’s had no clue and you might be even right .
Sure they are because they like trade and in their minds the game will be less popular… the question is will it be less popular and if so by how many % of the playerbase. Right now people can’t even refund the game on steam to speak with their wallets so we’ll most likely never know. That’s some kind of clever marketing thou… just change stuff when people can’t refund anymore… happens with EA as it seems .
But hey these are the only arguments delivered… I’m confused.
I don’t thing the game will be drasticly hurt if there is trade or not and only a small fraction of the playerbase will move away from LE. If EHG is publishing the game when no other hack and slay is there to fill the void most likely everyone who bought the game will play it even if the game was the most trash H&S on earth.
) but these conversations always seem to get to the same place: the loud voices - on both far sides of the fence - just keep yelling into their bullhorns and it appears no one keeps their feet on the ground.
. That’s just my oppinion because I think sending no signal is the worst thing to do right now but then again everybody know writing a substentail answer may take weeks. Therfor a life sign of any kind would be nice.
and I simply want to get over with it because it starts to get tiresome to go in cycles with only so little constructive feedback from both extremes.
) But there will also be more hands on, more NEW thoughts, more ideas and LE will get to take those and run with 'em.