It's time for preleveled/preascended characters to enter the shop or be made available somehow.
"
It really would benefit.
It would give people who normally wouldn't bother an actual reason to strive for level 70 (or whatever).
Many casuals want to fool around with many characters, but don't bother because of the time involved.
Once they've played through the game once, it's over because of the slog of doing it over and over again... slowly.
It benefits the 1%ers too, as they're going to have more lowbie players around to buy their high ilvl stuff from the places the lowbies never access anyway.
Only GGG knows that.
You do not need level 60+ to fool around with one character, and all the restrictions talked about in this thread ( lvl 80 itself is not enough, lvl 90 would not be either in HC at least, etc ... ), most of those players .... would not unlock it anyway imho.
SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading.
You really do need a minimum of 60 points before a lot of theory crafted ideas can begin to take life.
Many like to try their own ideas with less than meta skills and copy-pasted things.
Should that kind of thing be exclusive to only the people able to play several hours per day? How about those who would like to have fun but have a job and family life too? Must they be expected to settle on one character and a streamer build guide?
You really do need a minimum of 60 points before a lot of theory crafted ideas can begin to take life.
Many like to try their own ideas with less than meta skills and copy-pasted things.
Should that kind of thing be exclusive to only the people able to play several hours per day? How about those who would like to have fun but have a job and family life too? Must they be expected to settle on one character and a streamer build guide?
It's realistic to expect ~2 weeks minimum for people with family, or job ( I mean, beginning players, not experienced ones ), it's pretty fair to be able to toy with the character after that imo.
Plus now, there are respec thrown away between every league, making you able to try new stuff again.
There will be no sense of completion / satisfaction anymore ( or much less ) if people start from 60 because they want to "toy" with builds without having to level the character in the first place.
I expect many will actually get bored of this faster than getting bored of leveling new characters normally and then fully experimenting them, and that would be a serious threat to the longevity of the game.
You could just get the opposite effect of what you're asking.
SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading.
You really do need a minimum of 60 points before a lot of theory crafted ideas can begin to take life.
Many like to try their own ideas with less than meta skills and copy-pasted things.
Should that kind of thing be exclusive to only the people able to play several hours per day? How about those who would like to have fun but have a job and family life too? Must they be expected to settle on one character and a streamer build guide?
If you got a life who is to say you cant play the game from lvl 1 to 60? Youre being lazy and see this game as a job.
Either you play the game the way it is, from 1 to 60 or move on to a game that allows you to buy advanced characters because this isnt the game for you.
I disagree with your premise that a personal definition even exists in any useful sense. I'm only interested in a word's denotation*. The word "pay2win" has a very long history of referring to any paid feature (generally anything not purely cosmetic) which provides an in-game advantage over other players. Trying to create new "personal definitions" is exactly the illegitimate practice I am shitting on. It was the entire point of my post.
The entirety of my response was me demonstrating why your personal definition of the term you used is not a very useful one. It's great that you're now using one that is useful, but it's also incredibly dishonest of you to pretend that this new definition is any way relevant to what you said in the first place.
I also love that you provided your personal definition of the term and are trying to argue that your personal definition, unlike other people's definitions, is the legit meaning of the term. Language doesn't work the way you believe language works. You are not the arbiter of words.
Words mean what people use them to mean. Language is dictated by usage. Attempting to argue that some usage of words is "illegitimate" is nonsense.
Games are designed and balanced around the availability of certain resources to the average player.
And that's it, really. No other reason. Because once particular resources can be paid for with real money, everything else is influenced. You know the people in this thread who are worried that pre-paid leveled up characters will influence GGG's desire to make low-level gameplay, uniques, skill gem level-up dynamics, areas, etc. better? Yeah, they're talking about that one single sentence.
It all trickles down.
So your argument entirely consists of fear mongering? None of your points are based in reality. They're all hypotheticals based in fear. Fear mongering is not a valid argument against this idea.
No, those are my words. I was very clearing asking for an example where any advantage gained is one that is relevant. I have no clue how you could have possibly misread this as me putting words in your mouth, so I have no idea what terrible mistake you've committed here.
If there is no advantage to be gained, then it isn't pay2win, see? But I already said that. So the burden of proof is on you to explain why leveled-up characters which are paid for with real money does not provide ANY in-game advantage over another player spending no money. Good luck with that.
So the burden of proof is on me to disprove your unsupported claim, and not on you for actually making said unsupported claim? You clearly fail to understand who the burden of proof falls on.
Stop splitting hair with you supposed "economic philosophy" .... people are people, and the majority of them will take the easiest / more rewarding way they can find, and that is trading, and that implies competition.
It's not splitting hairs when the people saying it's a competition are just trying to impose their flawed philosophies onto everyone else. There's nothing factual behind it. Just like the rest of the nonsense you posted today. You continually use fallacious arguments and try to pass them off as fact. It's borderline trolling.
"
Just thinking that this proposal belongs to a 1% player population and it would not benefit the 99% of the playerbase.
"
...most of those players .... would not unlock it anyway imho.
"
There will be no sense of completion / satisfaction anymore ( or much less ) if people start from 60 because they want to "toy" with builds without having to level the character in the first place.
I expect many will actually get bored of this faster than getting bored of leveling new characters normally and then fully experimenting them, and that would be a serious threat to the longevity of the game.
You could just get the opposite effect of what you're asking.
All false. Especially the last part, because that is the exact reason this discussion exists.
"
PoE is a game, you can use than to tell people ( mostly raging ones ) to chill and stop getting carried away that much by a game, but it's basically irrelevant in a discussion about the balance of the game.
This is why in this case, it is a strawman.
This is closer to a straw man itself than what I said. You are trying to take it out of the context I was using and put it into a new one. Nice try, though.
~-~
For everyone else, we've been over the p2w nonsense already. Read through the thread if you want those points answered, because they already have been--exhaustively.
Tired of trolls? Ignore them.
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1473168
-It is not a paid-for feature, but rather an unlocked one
-You have to reach level 80 with at least one character
-You may need to fulfill other requirements like beating Malachai on Merc and/or having to complete all the story quests
-The character starts with no gear, no currency, all Normal/Cruel waypoints, choice of which bandit rewards for N/C, and starts in Act 1 Merc
Since everyone can do this, and it's not a paid-for feature, nobody has a competitive advantage that they wouldn't have without it. ...[snip]...
I kind of like the paid-for option. (More money for GGG to enhance the game.)
I'm fine with a level 80 gating or almost any of the other suggestions made.
I would be fine with the Malachai or other suggestions made.
Those starting criterian seem reasonable to me.
You could try to get Pyrokar to update the OP. Otherwise, the only other "arbitrator" on what is what for this thread is GGG. :-) Regards,
I can get behind this with two added restrictions:
- 3-4 weeks into the league, so that people racing have to start from lvl1 if they die in hc, because a lot of people like to watch rips and rerolls on twitch and some economy factors.
-Only available if you have already had 20 characters leveled into merciless in your account. This is for new players to experience the game and lore, not copy the best streamer build, clear the aforementioned restrictions and then have free reign to do any build they want and quit in less than a week. This suggestion is for old players who have done the normal->merciless a lot of times.
If you agree on adding these restrictions as well, i'll put it in the OP as a free for all option and change the title as well. Although i still think that the payed option has a bigger chance of being implemented given recents events.
I'm a forum warrior, i was born to post, raised to defend my league. Now my post has been removed, chained and exiled by mods who Ban. Ban is my brother; i do not fear it. I see it in the eyes of men and beasts that i troll. It will take me to play the actual game when i am ready and i am not ready.
I disagree with your premise that a personal definition even exists in any useful sense. I'm only interested in a word's denotation*. The word "pay2win" has a very long history of referring to any paid feature (generally anything not purely cosmetic) which provides an in-game advantage over other players. Trying to create new "personal definitions" is exactly the illegitimate practice I am shitting on. It was the entire point of my post.
The entirety of my response was me demonstrating why your personal definition of the term you used is not a very useful one. It's great that you're now using one that is useful, but it's also incredibly dishonest of you to pretend that this new definition is any way relevant to what you said in the first place.
I also love that you provided your personal definition of the term and are trying to argue that your personal definition, unlike other people's definitions, is the legit meaning of the term. Language doesn't work the way you believe language works. You are not the arbiter of words.
Words mean what people use them to mean. Language is dictated by usage. Attempting to argue that some usage of words is "illegitimate" is nonsense.
Games are designed and balanced around the availability of certain resources to the average player.
And that's it, really. No other reason. Because once particular resources can be paid for with real money, everything else is influenced. You know the people in this thread who are worried that pre-paid leveled up characters will influence GGG's desire to make low-level gameplay, uniques, skill gem level-up dynamics, areas, etc. better? Yeah, they're talking about that one single sentence.
It all trickles down.
So your argument entirely consists of fear mongering? None of your points are based in reality. They're all hypotheticals based in fear. Fear mongering is not a valid argument against this idea.
No, those are my words. I was very clearing asking for an example where any advantage gained is one that is relevant. I have no clue how you could have possibly misread this as me putting words in your mouth, so I have no idea what terrible mistake you've committed here.
If there is no advantage to be gained, then it isn't pay2win, see? But I already said that. So the burden of proof is on you to explain why leveled-up characters which are paid for with real money does not provide ANY in-game advantage over another player spending no money. Good luck with that.
So the burden of proof is on me to disprove your unsupported claim, and not on you for actually making said unsupported claim? You clearly fail to understand who the burden of proof falls on.
The definition I provided (THE definition, not MY definition) never changed. What contradiction are you seeing?
Furthermore, it was never my personal definition in the first place.
I'm not sure how you managed to miss that fact, unless you don't know what "denotation" means. You have no excuse; I even quoted it for you at the end of the post in case you were too lazy to look it up.
I've seen people in this thread tap-dancing out apologetics to explain that pay2win isn't actually pay2win; that is where so-called personal definitions come in (which completely destroy any discussion, as you can readily observe).
You can claim that the denotation I provided is inaccurate, but that's very different from calling it "my personal definition" and claiming that "your personal definition" is better. (And again, for the second time, I dispute your very premise that either even exists on any practical level, outside of one's own head.) If that's what you want to do, then go ahead and tell me what the REAL definition of pay2win is.
If it isn't "real-life money traded for in-game advantages," then what is it?
Then you're a huge troll ( or there is another problem somewhere, but I'd rather be a troll if I were you I guess ), like really.
I don't even need to argue there because you provide absolutely no arguments, none, there is nothing.
Keep using rhethorical shit without actual content if you want, it does not change anything ( obviously again but well .... ).
