0.10.3c Patch Notes

"

mushioov wrote:

This is the same disgusting attitude you had with TL2 on their forums.
What I told you then and what I tell you know remains: More "options" != Better.
That's your opinion, fine.

If the devs have their vision, you play according to their rules, not your with own set of rules. GGG wants to have us ALL on the same ground, with same rules.
I find it difficult to comprehend that you don't comprehend this, as you don't seem to be otherwise that stupid.

I do comprehend 'this'. Derp. What I merely suggest is that GGG shouldn't be making a game that tells people how they should have fun. This cutthroat feeling their game is trying to achieve fails hard. What I mean about it is that for everyone it should feel cutthroat, however the problem is this:

A. I can't kill the players at all. I shouldn't be 'trusting' any of my fellow exiles. I can pvp in an arena of sorts, but I can never just go 'kill' them. Why would I want to? Because maybe my exile (templar) wishes to kill all witches because of their misdeeds or who knows what. Why also is it that I can kill fellow party members just by choosing differently with Oak for example? Then when you leave Oak's Encampment you are no longer obliged to kill the betrayers of Oak or vice versa? Really? Cutthroat my ass is all I say to this.

B. This cutthroat behavior they had in mind with the loot system only exists in selective parties. Also, parties that have trustworthy players, whether it's your friends or family you are playing with won't be having this cutthroat behavior that they intended. So, basically only random groups have a forced cutthroat ruleset in which not everyone wants to play that way, but then again they don't want to have to find 30+ friends just so when they are always on they could party up with them for a fair/fun experience for them.

C. Changing the way looting works to allow various settings would be able to open up how people play. Examples include: True FFA, FFA with nametags, FFA without nametags, FFA with adjustable timer, instanced looting, etc etc. In other words, not every loot system is without a flaw, but having the choice to pick which one the group leader would be ideal.

I have stated that GGG is free to do whatever it is they wish to do with their game, but I am failing to agree with their cutthroat vision. It is just not cutthroat and I cannot defend that argument. I like the exile idea itself, but I'm not feeling competition. I'm not feeling that my fellow players are against me at all. I never feel on edge. I never feel that I'm in control of my exile. My exile only has one path and that's to loot everything I can and survive with others. Wow. My exile is so badass.

Disclaimer: You can choose the path of playing solo, but seeing as party gives 250% BONUS quantity and it makes the game a bit easier to handle to boot is very hard to pass up. In fact, I would argue that the only thing stopping me from playing solo is the quantity bonus. I honestly don't have problems picking up loot, so it's a non-issue for someone like myself.






Sidenote: I'm having a hard time thinking of an instance where more options would NOT be better than having one option to accomplish a certain task.

Maybe in a linear story where you have one ending. Then you wouldn't need/have options available to you then, but otherwise...?

"

mushioov wrote:

"

mibuwolf wrote:

I don't mind developer vision of a game, but it should open to the player deciding how it is they wish to play though it. Do I want to play on easy difficulty? Or perhaps the impossible difficulty that could take nearly a year just to finally beat a single playthrough? Ironman/hardcore mode?

Etc.

You may disagree with what I am saying, but it is my opinion.

This is the same disgusting attitude you had with TL2 on their forums.
What I told you then and what I tell you know remains: More "options" != Better.
That's your opinion, fine.

If the devs have their vision, you play according to their rules, not your with own set of rules. GGG wants to have us ALL on the same ground, with same rules.
I find it difficult to comprehend that you don't comprehend this, as you don't seem to be otherwise that stupid.

Yes, he is entitled to his opinion, as you are yours. The fact is, though, he does have a valid point. Everyone tends to play through a game according to personal play styles. This is not a stupid observation - it is an astute one.

Some prefer to race through quickly - some play through leisurely. Some choose to beat a game on the hardest difficulty, others are happy to play through once on normal difficulty. In online games some play through as asinine as they can, others play through as co-op as they can. This is true no matter what the game. It doesn't change the rules of the game.

Asking for changes to the way loot can be allocated by presenting more options does not hamper gameplay according to a dev vision - that still remains and the those who wish to play that way have that option open to them. It also opens the playing field to different play styles that will continue to play the game. Differing play styles will always be present in the game and if one thing is obvious from reading through here, it is that trying to force one play style on people doesn't work - it never does. If it did, then there wouldn't be "gentleman's rules", dedicated groups, or people choosing to play solo rather than put up with the BS.

An example: If player A chooses to play poker conservatively, but player B always plays aggressively - does either change the rules of the game? Of course not - but each has a different play style and as long as the game exists then these types of play styles will exist, as well as everything in between. This is true of any game that involves a level of strategy, either online or off. But wait! The creator of the game had a vision of how it should be played - and <insert play style here> aint it!

Accommodating differing play styles with a minor quality of life adjustment like this does not equal changing the rules of the game. It expands the depth of the game.

not sure if devs are serious...

"

Chris wrote:

It's important to us that Path of Exile has a cut-throat feel where players are not only competing against monsters, but also their fellow players.

"

Chris wrote:

[...] To some extent, removing the names is to try to reinforce that they are items for your whole party, not just for the person who happened to get the first chance at them.

Well, thats kinda contradictory.

I hope after all this discussions and feedback GGG makes the right decisions. One could be to implement different loot-options and let the players eventually choose what they feel is suitable in the situation they're playing.

about the loot system, it's not "cut-throat feel" it's a win-for-ninjas which i been dealing with them since i joined this game.
the current "unfair system" is very distracting, instead of focusing on my gameplay..killing, dodging or helping another party member stuck in mass of monsters, i'm forced to pay more attention on my loot afraid someone else will get it .
i really would love to support PoE but the loot system is a big issue for me, and i'm holding my money until it's fixed/tweaked .

They should just remove collision between players and be done with it.

All I can say is WOW.

They managed to make the loot-system WORSE.
That's quite an achievement considering how bad it was before. I used to suck for public parties, now it also sucks for private parties.

Some details to make this post less of a rant and more useful:
I gave up on public parties a long time ago because of the loot system.
I partied with guild-mates and we distributed currency by the names attached to the items.
Now we have to count how much of which currency each player got. That's not only annoying and time-consuming but also completely retarded. It slows the game down tremendously.

"

mushioov wrote:

If the devs have their vision, you play according to their rules, not your with own set of rules. GGG wants to have us ALL on the same ground, with same rules.
I find it difficult to comprehend that you don't comprehend this, as you don't seem to be otherwise that stupid.

Trying to force a playstyle on everyone, when about half of the playerbase doesn't want to play that way is the shortest path to failure.
People always find ways around rules that don't make sense to them, especially when you have a large group of people that agree that the rules don't make sense.

let me see, my options are :

a. playing solo or just with people i already know - thats what i am doing for the last months and still do. boring ...

b. become a ninja myself when playing with strangers - not really an option, i just dont like this way of playing!

c. deal with the risk of meeting ninjas - deal with the frustration 8 [

if i get that right, the cut throat-feeling chris was talking about is what happens when i choose option b. or c. i get that "i want to cut throats" feeling but cannot do anything about it ?!

what if we had names on the loot again, that means every party member gets his own drop. when player1 decides to take player2s loot, player1 gets the option to pvp against player2 for the taken item.
that would be cut-throat feeling, the risk on both sides equal, gentleman versus ninja.

seriously, i cannot think of anything more simple as to have a timeroption to be be set by the teamleader and his preferences.
choose between 1-30 seconds for those the loot is reserved to the players, for an example and everyone should be happy 8 )

It may have been mentioned already (sorry i don't have the time to read 60+ pagaes of this post) but if u wan't to keep te ffa loot system and not give the player's an option to change it, why not keep the name of the person the loot whas alocated to after the timer expiers. Also why not make some kind of log on who looted an alocated item? This would be great help for any parties that agreed to "No Ninja" and would not be much of a change to the system.

You know, the ideas of instanced loot options and such are actually really good when you look at them. They could introduce options relating to risk and reward, if implemented right. For example, you get 50% more drop rate when someone joins, yes? Well, split that between two people. 75% of the normal drop rate for each now. Third person joins, 66.67%. Fourth, 62.5%. You see where this is going?

It could effectively become this; players who wish to play it safe and have no arguments with their team can choose to have a divided view of the items dropped by playing with instanced loot, while players who enjoy the risk of having their loot snagged, while having a chance to snag more loot themselves, can play with FFA loot. There's incentive for both, there's balance for both, and there's no excuse to not implement both, other than a stubborn desire to enforce a broken and false sense of 'loot tension'. (It's frustration. Not tension.)