Why I'm quitting PoE and no longer recommending it to friends

as I said, I agree that the levels idea is not bad. leaving the fusing mechanics as it is, but higher level items having better chances is a nice idea.

I still think that the other idea, picking a high number that players can accumulate over time to trade for a guaranteed 6l, and again keeping the fusing mechanics as it is, is also a good idea.

but all other ideas I've heard here - changing the fusing mechanics to some thing or another, are all bad ideas that try to make a compromise between two separate groups of players.

Friend of mine (and a well-known forum poster) dropped a 6L plate in a map a few nights ago.

Not sure whom he sacrificed to the RNG Gods or how many of them, but something clearly pleased Them; maybe They were just in a good mood.

So it does happen. These things do drop.

I've now seen it.

The curious thing is, almost certainly, the RNG Gods favour those willing to offer up even hundreds of Fusing orbs over those who hope (or don't even hope) to find a 6L while hunting.

I think this is how I'll approach it, when my turn comes to desire the fabled 6L. It's purely philosophical, really, almost like a zen realisation of nirvana. The moment you stop looking for it, it might just come.

I intend to focus on other things, which is actually as GGG intended -- have your everyday gear, stuff you can play with, but build your 'dream' gear on the side. I realise that the 'building' bit is what is frustrating people, but I cannot stress enough the strength of the word 'dream'.

It might be asking too much of players to approach this with a mindset of acceptance that failure to achieve the dream is not failure to succeed at other things. I think those who see the 6L as the inevitable destination of high level play are those who will support the idea of doing away with the obvious RNG gambling and support a fixed XXX price for the 6L, although they're still at the mercy of the RNG Gods -- whether it's for Fusing drops or items they can trade for Fusing Orbs.

For such people, something GGG may have intended to be a luxury, a rather lucrative retirement plan almost, has become a passion and maybe even a perceived necessity. I cannot say if 6L is needed to play at the highest levels but from what I've read it likely is not.

If we can thus accept that 6L is a luxury and not a necessity, I do not support the idea of placing a clean pricetag on it. But if it can be proven as a necessity (for most builds), then a more reliable means of attainment should be implemented.

Any other ideas, such as the higher level drops having a minimum number of sockets, are well worth considering.

And I think clinx1337 is dead on the money regarding what will happen once Open hits regarding the proliferation of 6Ls. It might be the Philosopher's Stone right now, but with more players and no fear of wipes, I think the mirror will *probably* be once again the rarest item in everyone's eyes.

In which case, making 6L easier to get, even via the restricted socket chance mentioned above, might work for now, but come Open it could create a serious flood of something that might not be 'the grail' but should still be considered quite rare.

"

Charan wrote:

I think this is how I'll approach it, when my turn comes to desire the fabled 6L. It's purely philosophical, really, almost like a zen realisation of nirvana. The moment you stop looking for it, it might just come.

stop looking for the path and you will be on it.

nirvana - buddhists actually have a clear path which confuses this philosophy, but if you look carefully at it - wear monastic clothes and shave your head - you lose your clothes and hair as your identifying marks and thus you lose your identity and on the path to liberation. it could be taken apart further to have the same results. though it seems no different than any religion, it is designed to liberate you from those things.

but this path is the hardest thing imaginable in life, because you initiated in the path to search for nirvana, but you actually searching for nirvana prevents you from attaining it.

though I enjoy more the philosophy of daoism, buddhist philosophy has a great appeal as well. <EDIT> and zen buddhism was largely influenced by daoism, to the degree that the academy argues if zen is mostly buddhist or moztly doaist </EDIT>

but the point is not that few overcome this paradox and attain nirvana, but that few are even willing to accept the fact that you need to stop looking in order to find it. it is just not how our society works.

you can look at plato's cave as a good metaphor - most look at the enlightened one and laugh at him and scorn him, saying - what do you mean respect and wealth are not the purposes, the goal, the ethos, in life?

I didn't deserve such an excellent response, Dao.

With the greatest possible humility, I suggest that my incomplete, skewed idea of zen and sunyata, a catch-all 'no-state' for getting past the entanglements of nirvana and samsara (affected most recently by the Kyoto School, who probably got some of it wrong too) will remain my personal guide for attaining that which alludes so many others. It wouldn't be the first time a misinterpretation has led to an overall positive outcome.

Where others are asking, I'll not-ask and if it happens, wonderful. If not, well, I can't exactly be disappointed.

I suppose that's the delightful and enduring paradox of it all. If the truism of 'ask and ye shall receive' serves as a basis for the equally trite 'if you don't ask, you don't get', then maybe believing in the power of not-asking is the biggest trap of them all.

In the end, this might be a question of faith. In GGG? That's frightening and awesome in equal measures to me.

Then again, with these boards, are they not asking as well...?

And receiving?

Which brings me back on-topic, actually (if I ever left -- a debate best left unexplored): is the 6L something you can ask for (and by extension expect), or is it something to hope for (but never expect)?

The difference is that the west accepts paradoxes as a logical fullstop. In the east, paradoxes are more accepted as a necessity, a mechanism.

Compare Thomas Aquinas' "evil is privation" where he assumes that "evil" is "non-being" (in order to escape the paradox that good must depend upon evil; that god must be an evil being as well as good) and the Dao De Jing, which claims in one of the earlier sections, (paraphrased) "a wheel without a hole cannot turn; a house without holes is not a house; a clay vessel is not without its lack of substance" - basically stating that being and non-being depend upon each other.

To find the path, you must search for it and not in much the same way a glass must be and be-not in order to be.

I would personally advise anyone looking to find a 6L to read the Dao De Jing (or some other philosophical text) as you will need something to answer the inevitable metaphorical questions that arise about the meaning of such a search.

I am amazed how quickly this thread, which indeed might have been a 'troll' thread elsewhere, has gained my full attention and affection.

"

Charan wrote:

With the greatest possible humility, I suggest that my incomplete, skewed idea of zen and sunyata, a catch-all 'no-state' for getting past the entanglements of nirvana and samsara (affected most recently by the Kyoto School, who probably got some of it wrong too) will remain my personal guide for attaining that which alludes so many others. It wouldn't be the first time a misinterpretation has led to an overall positive outcome.

Where others are asking, I'll not-ask and if it happens, wonderful. If not, well, I can't exactly be disappointed.

I suppose that's the delightful and enduring paradox of it all. If the truism of 'ask and ye shall receive' serves as a basis for the equally trite 'if you don't ask, you don't get', then maybe believing in the power of not-asking is the biggest trap of them all.

In the end, this might be a question of faith. In GGG? That's frightening and awesome in equal measures to me.

Then again, with these boards, are they not asking as well...?

And receiving?

Which brings me back on-topic, actually (if I ever left -- a debate best left unexplored): is the 6L something you can ask for (and by extension expect), or is it something to hope for (but never expect)?

if we are going deeper into eastern philosophy, i must note that i am presenting my opinions and interpretations alone.

i think that the main paradox is not a paradox at all. once you realize that there is no self that wants or doesn't want, asks or doesn't ask, what point is there to asking? it is a whole new perspective.

zen's greatness in my opinion derives from the book of ZhuangZi, a daoist when there was no daoism, to quote A.C. Graham (a famous sinologist), ZhuangZi didn't know he was a daoist, and he was probably a huge and uncredited influence on the zen transformation of buddhism.

the path, as can be understood from ZhuangZi, is personal, and you cannot learn it from another. the wheelmaker was making wheels while the king read a book on his balcony. the wheelmaker came to the king and asked "what are these books you're reading", "books written by wise men" the king replied. "do they still live?", "no" said the king. "then you should throw them all away because they are worthless"...

"explain yourself at once or i shall cut your head off" the king demanded, and the wheelmaker explained: "you see this wheel? i make it with a chisel and a hammer. if i hit too hard the wheel would break, if i hit too soft the chisel wouldn't do anything. this not too hard and not too soft my heart feels and my hands execute, but i cannot even explain it to my son, and so i am 70 years old and still making wheels. such are your books, equivalent of not too hard and not too soft, while the real meaning died with the wise men."

such is the nature of zen, and the teachers realize that the path cannot be worded or explained, but instead each must learn it on his own, sense it, live it, become it.

but what is this path we seek, and who are we that are seeking it? ZhuangZi's answer is simple (direct quote from ctext.org) "Before it was possible for me to employ (this method), there I was, the Hui that I am; now, that I can employ it, the Hui that I was has passed away". another interpretation is - before i was the agent behind my actions i was me, but when i became the agent of my actions, there never was a me.

"

anubite wrote:

The difference is that the west accepts paradoxes as a logical fullstop. In the east, paradoxes are more accepted as a necessity, a mechanism.

Compare Thomas Aquinas' "evil is privation" where he assumes that "evil" is "non-being" (in order to escape the paradox that good must depend upon evil; that god must be an evil being as well as good) and the Dao De Jing, which claims in one of the earlier sections, (paraphrased) "a wheel without a hole cannot turn; a house without holes is not a house; a clay vessel is not without its lack of substance" - basically stating that being and non-being depend upon each other.

To find the path, you must search for it and not in much the same way a glass must be and be-not in order to be.

I would personally advise anyone looking to find a 6L to read the Dao De Jing (or some other philosophical text) as you will need something to answer the inevitable metaphorical questions that arise about the meaning of such a search.

once the realization comes that there is no self, that our wants and needs are all fake and get in the way of living, then all the paradoxes of both the east and west are suddenly resolved. the premise of a self is what leads all a stray, trying to explain the world through the self. Kant made a positive step forward, showing the empiricists and rationalists the proper way, but in the west it is never enough, always afraid to let go because they wish to combine the respect and wealth, that even pluto fought against, with the true path. this leads to a compromise, that aristotle also tried to do, but like all that followed, failed.

the path being very personal, and the self not existing leads to a few problems. first, trying to get somebody out of the box in which he lives, as pluto demonstrates in his cave metaphor so well, is really quite hard, but combine it with the fact that you cannot actually teach a person or show him the way, just let him experience it himself, so there is no real incentive to actually take it in the first place, it is quite impossible.

westerners would call it nihilism, but they call it that living inside their box of self, afraid to look beyond it.

the only logical way is to live happily with this philosophy in mind, and when they are ready, and their eyes will see your happy state as they saw the 6l, and desire it as they desired the 6l, they will come and ask, and if they will desire it maybe they will investigate and attain it. there is no other way to convert the masses to the proper path, because, to quote the daodejing, any path that can be pointed at is not the constant path you should walk on. but even this quote is ridiculed by the western philosophers because what is the purpose of writing a book if the first line of it is that such a book cannot be written? this first response of the intellectuals just demonstrates all i've been talking about (not against the western philosophers but regarding human nature and the nature of the path).

but teaching an average human being, unaware of this philosophy, that if a 6l exists and his eyes have seen it, then he shouldn't want it or feel entitled to it? impossible.

I've not taken my philosophy classes, and I don't like to insult professors, but it's always pointless for me to bring the Dao into any philosophical discussion. As far as most Western lecturers are concerned, the Dao is written off as some kind of determinalistic naturalism, at best, and at worst, the very definition of trivialism.

A philosophy that acknowledges it cannot be one is perfect. As you say, philosophy is personal; to try and force others to ascribe to your way of being is silly. Even if I follow the Dao, it cannot be the same Dao you ascribe to.

I don't like to feel haughty, but I don't understand why even the philosophy teachers I've interacted with refuse to acknowledge this idea. If I ever so make a simple statement as, "I exist and do not" - it's immediately interpreted as nihilism, as though I am a suicidal person because I regard myself as being so infinite I have no definition.

It'll be a sad day when the internet falls to the draconian whims of government... and facebook.

Oh, and I had reserved the name Dao for one of my characters until a month ago when I decided it just wasn't a very good name (figuring most people would fail to appreciate it). I bet you stole it? I tried to take it back the other day.

"

anubite wrote:

I've not taken my philosophy classes, and I don't like to insult professors, but it's always pointless for me to bring the Dao into any philosophical discussion. As far as most Western lecturers are concerned, the Dao is written off as some kind of determinalistic naturalism, at best, and at worst, the very definition of trivialism.

A philosophy that acknowledges it cannot be one is perfect. As you say, philosophy is personal; to try and force others to ascribe to your way of being is silly. Even if I follow the Dao, it cannot be the same Dao you ascribe to.

I don't like to feel haughty, but I don't understand why even the philosophy teachers I've interacted with refuse to acknowledge this idea. If I ever so make a simple statement as, "I exist and do not" - it's immediately interpreted as nihilism, as though I am a suicidal person because I regard myself as being so infinite I have no definition.

It'll be a sad day when the internet falls to the draconian whims of government... and facebook.

Oh, and I had reserved the name Dao for one of my characters until a month ago when I decided it just wasn't a very good name (figuring most people would fail to appreciate it). I bet you stole it? I tried to take it back the other day.

stole? i registered on the website and after several attempts, Dao is what i came up with and it was available. it is the account name and i have no characters by that name. stole it? please start a thread with all the names you wish to use in the future so nobody is blamed for stealing anything.

naturalism is but one interpretation and interpretations in philosophy can be many, even turning things into something completely different - what Spinoza did with Descartes for example (he was actually teaching Descartes but with his interpretation in mind).

as for simple determinism. what solutions are there in the western philosophy? what is the opposite of determinism? indeterminism? if you investigate it, it is even more absurd, and thus moralists invented the agent, the one that acts when the world around them is pretty much in determinism. needless to say this is making the thoery complex and just full of holes, eventually leading back to the same determinism vs indeterminism when you look through it. nothing new just building more layers hoping the new ones will cover over the holes of the old ones, which they don't.

the Dao is not discussed by the so called "serious" philosophers or "professional" philosophers because of the things i described above (again my opinion), and because they refuse to understand it. they must include in their theories what they perceive to be human nature, and the Dao cancels it.

but those that call it naturalism are ones that have not even investigated it, just read the remarks of some hot shots (and philosophers always try to prove themselves to be superior and rejecting the opinions of others) that themselves didn't look at it carefully.

now as for determinism and how the Dao solves it. let me present a metaphor of a river, actually best river for this example is the chinese yellow river (because of the amount of land that it carries) but any river would do.

a river flows and carries land. the land sets and changes the path of the river. is the river running in a pre-determined path or not? the nature of the dao is that while it is pre-determined while we walk it, our walking on it changes it as we walk on it, same as the river.

the determinism paradox is fake.

I think my mind was just blown in the best way possible :)