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

"

MaxTheLimit wrote:

So I guess that means you are in favor of the recipe?

incorrect , having it fixed would be hard to balance.

if it is too low then the item loses value. too much and it becomes frustrating.

think about , what would be a good fixed translation?
30 - 50 - 100?
we can do the gem levels like in diablo. ie

3 link fusing = 3 2 link fusing
4 link fusing = 3 3 link fusing or 9 fusing
5 link fusing = 3 4 link fusing or 27 fusing
6 link fusing = 3 5 link fusing or 81 fusing

81 seems like a reasonable amount of orb melting for 6 link
but the numbers could be adjusted accordingly.

but I think a better and simpler solution is to simply increase the chance to get 6l. 500 fusing is an obnoxious amount for one item so we need something at least 5 times more likely

I think the target average should be in the 50 -75 fusing range and not the 100 - 1000 fusing range

"

Saltychipmunk wrote:

"

MaxTheLimit wrote:

So I guess that means you are in favor of the recipe?

incorrect , having it fixed would be hard to balance.

no, it would be really easy to balance. Chris suggested 1500, so there you go. nothing special to do, leaving the fusing orb mechanic as it is, but if you choose to not use the RNG and instead collect 1500 then you can guarantee a 6l on an item. no balance issues.

"

but I think a better and simpler solution is to simply increase the chance to get 6l. 500 fusing is an obnoxious amount for one item so we need something at least 5 times more likely

I think the target average should be in the 50 -75 fusing range and not the 100 - 1000 fusing range

it took OP a month to gather 300 fusing orbs. so you want to be able to craft a 6l in a week and a half?

500 is a good number. if 300 is the amount you gather in a month, then about two months is fine.

forget the desire to have it here and now. we all want everything here and now. but 6l is not needed to pass the game, it is an upgrade you can afford to get only in several months. or else 6l items would flood the market with those numbers you are suggesting.

1500 is way to much , you have to understand that not everyone is going to play this game 24/7 nor will everyone have the money to buy the obnoxious amount of stash tabs you need to take advantaged of orb recipes


even 300 is stretching by alot. 300 is what a paying customer who is invested in the game would make in a month

but what about the f2p players who quite possibly make the bulk of the player base?

those people who cant take advantage of the chaos , or double/triple rare formulas?

I will admit 81 is small number but 300 is quite the investment considering how many items you would have to liquefy to get 300 fusing. and 1500 is out of your freaking mind insane.

not everyone here is kripp and can devote 12 hours a day to playing a game.

why everyone needs a 6l in the first place?

naturally those who farm 24/7 will have an advantage in any game, but why do you want to make it easier for casuals (i am nowhere near a position to farm 300 fusing orbs in a month for example, and i am fine with it)

"

Dao wrote:

"

aimlessgun wrote:

I believe with a guarantee on the XXX (whatever large number) fuse, the thrill of gambling would still be there. You still have every chance of fusing on the first 999 fuses :D

Whether or not the increase in supply would be significant depends on both opinion and the actual distribution as programmed by GGG, so its impossible to argue about :/

the lottery comparison should have shown exactly what i meant. you cannot reward gambling with a guarantee. for gambling to be gambling you need a non-gambling solution, and cannot combine it within the mechanics. otherwise you would find that perfect piece of gear, and mindlessly waste fusing orbs on it, knowing there won't be any consequences to your actions.

gambling is a risk! it could turn out worse than saving the fusing orbs, which is what makes it interesting. with this suggestion you want to remove the risk factor.

Who says you can't combine the two? For me personally it would work perfectly well. I would get both the excitement of gambling for the pre-guarantee fusings, while at the same time the psychological satisfaction of knowing I am getting incremental progress.

And if you find a 'perfect' rare with 6 sockets, with the current system you will 'mindlessly' pour fusings into it. I don't understand why you wouldn't. I suppose if you rolled 5L you'd stop and maybe save up 100 fusings, but really how people currently roll 6L is they have their other 5l chest that they wear and don't craft, while they have the 6sock in the stash to roll fusings on. So the 'risk' does not exist for the vast majority of how people actually use fusing orbs.

"

Dao wrote:

as for the increase in supply. what you are doing with this solution is cutting the upper limit.

Yes, exactly.

"

Dao wrote:

how it actually programmed is of no importance because we already have reports of over 1000 orbs used,

if a very insignificant percentage of people would've used too many orbs, then this thread wouldn't be so popular.

Hrm really? The highest number I've ever seen reported on the forums is 600 with no 6link.

I think the popularity of the thread is based on the lack of incremental progress, rather than many people actually getting screwed so badly that they use up 1000 fusings. Even at only 200 fusings with no 5L/6L I got really annoyed because there was no progress, that fusing 201 had the same chance as fusing 1-200 and those 200 fusings did absolutely nothing. The knowledge that this could go on for hundreds more fusings, without any progress and more total waste is what really got to me, and totally killed the gambling thrill I was getting for say the first 100 orbs.

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that giving a guarantee at 1000 fusings would increase the supply of 6L in the economy by less than 0.5% I would love if a dev could give us some insight as to how close my guess is :)

"

Dao wrote:

why everyone needs a 6l in the first place?

naturally those who farm 24/7 will have an advantage in any game, but why do you want to make it easier for casuals (i am nowhere near a position to farm 300 fusing orbs in a month for example, and i am fine with it)

Not everyone needs a 6l. But everyone will get a 6l because right now they are, on average, not exceedingly hard to get. Serious players will have them in a month or two after open beta comes out, but even super casuals will get them in a few months if they make it a goal.

The problem is that the process of getting them can potentially be completely and utterly unfun.

the process is fine, and changing the process to guarantee something is a wrong way.

why won't you be satisfied with a separate recipe? because the number is too big and you rather gamble. do it at your own risk

and if you estimate that everybody would have a 6l then it is the more reason to not even add the recipe.

Seems like this is an impasse. You think the chance of blowing a thousand fusings for nothing makes things more fun. I think it makes things less fun, and I that a guarantee does not reduce the fun of gambling. Really no way to resolve it :)

in theory you think it doesn't reduce the fun of gambling.

in theory many people said that unique items as best in spot is bad for the game because it ruins diversity. so d3 did it so that random yellows are best in spot.

in practice you will notice that what you ask for and what you actually want are two different things, and if you know that playing the lottery 1000 times would guarantee you a win the fun of gambling would be reduced.

if you are after profit, sure it would make it much much better, instead of a choice between gambling and a very big number to save to guarantee a 6l, while gambling would probably produce better results.

if you do have a very big number as a guarantee, yet you, knowing gambling would produce better results, use gambling, you would make a choice yourself and feel better about it. nobody would actually save 1500 orbs.

again, for pure gambling fun you are ruining it. for pure profit sure you don't see any problem with that suggestion.