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

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

"

StillSingle wrote:

Whereas the current socket/link/skill system makes your skills grow and shrink randomly because the number of linked sockets you have are tied to RnG (6L being inordanitely difficult to get).

This would be the case if you were forced to wear new gear. You're not. You can see the sockets on it, and choose not to use it, or to try and change it, if the socket setup on that gear would be a downgrade. Or you can choose to use it anyway in exchange for increases to other stats, thus allowing the player to make a meaningful choice about the progression of their character as a whole, by sacrificing progression in one area for progression in another.

NOTE: This post is my personal view on the matter, and does not necessarily mean all of GGG agrees with this. This warning doesn't mean that they don't. We're individual people each with our own opinions

While I respect this view, I believe this logic is flawed. You use the term choice and choose, but that is not what is happening. People will perceive things that happen in game ( including items that drop / fuses that happen or don't, etc ) to be a resultant of choices they have made. They have "invested" their time and expectations of a reward, absent a reward there is no consolation prize, as a result of this the person feels "victimized" by the game, because it's "obvious" that their "choices" simply did not matter, and subsequently, they are merely victims of circumstance.

The problem with a probability distribution function that is an ideal or perfect bell curve is the creation of the emotions of being a victim of circumstance. Long term absence of a marginal or small linear positive feedback loop increases the negative emotional response greatly.

The evidence of this fact is obvious when you consider the model employed in a similar title that failed from blizzard entertainment. They wrote the book on how to burn your players with pure RNG. A wealth of "what not to do if you write a game" is in that.

Now, quite frankly the company name is grinding gear games, grinding suggests that work = reward, would random gear games would have be a more appropriate choice?

I'm speaking to this subject because its a subtle important thing that GGG discuss / argue about internally.

You guys DO constantly impress, keep kicking ass!

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

This would be the case if you were forced to wear new gear. You're not. You can see the sockets on it, and choose not to use it, or to try and change it, if the socket setup on that gear would be a downgrade. Or you can choose to use it anyway in exchange for increases to other stats, thus allowing the player to make a meaningful choice about the progression of their character as a whole, by sacrificing progression in one area for progression in another.

Thank you for participating in this conversation, Mark. However, I feel obliged to observe that your insights, though interesting, are readily invalidated for purposes of the topic at hand.

The dynamic you describe does indeed exist within the scope of the various mods that, for example, appear on a particular piece of rare gear. Should your character choose to swap that piece on, he gains in some areas, loses in others. Is it worth the cost? Can that cost be mitigated with another swap in another piece? These are meaningful choices, important decisions. This is, I might dare purport, the heart of the equipment mini-game system.

Furthermore -- and this is the key point, as I'll illustrate in a moment -- if that particular piece *doesn't* suit your needs, *doesn't* integrate well into your setup, for whatever reason, then it goes in the stash. Or onto the floor. Or traded to an alt. Or whatever. You have little recourse, little control over that item. Oh, sure, you can throw an orb at it, but that's basically destroying item A and creating item B. You can't make small, subtle changes to a rare. It's all or nothing. Just as you've asserted.

Now, if the number of linked sockets on an item worked similarly to each of the characteristics of a rare -- that it was just some property of the item, take it or leave it -- then yes, linked sockets would simply be another aspect of choice about an item. You can choose between rare A, with 3 linked sockets and +50 health; or rare B, with 4 linked sockets but only +25 health. And so forth. It would just be another factor in the decision-making, equipment-juggling process. And that would be the end of it.

But sockets DO NOT work that way, Mark. Sockets, and the links between them, ARE a characteristic that can be *individually addressed* on an item. You can take Uber Rare X, with six awesome mods but crap for sockets, and throw socket-related -- and ONLY socket-related -- orbs at it. And in so doing, the item RETAINS all of its original rare characteristics and *separately alters* its socket features.

With enough socket-related orbs, and time, and patience, and sanity, the item WILL, eventually, be transformed into an item with both the aforementioned full set of rare characteristics AND whatever socket configuration the player desires. In this sense, Mark, you are demonstrably wrong -- the player has sacrificed *nothing* to achieve this end. Unless, of course, you consider time, patience and sanity to be sacrificed resources. But as far as equipment goes, no, the character has not lost anything over the course of his time spent gambling orbs on the item.

That is how the system -- your game's system -- currently works. Sockets are NOT the same as other aspects of a character's gear. Sockets have a wholly separate progression system. And it is this idiosyncratic system -- a wildly random and imbalanced system -- that this thread is seeking to address.

"

Xaxyx wrote:

<snip>
These are meaningful choices, important decisions.
<snip>

I liked your feedback. I will go out on a limb here and suggest that the choices are only meaningful when the selections that are presented are actually effected by our input or actions. Otherwise they are merely our non-meaningful choices in light of circumstances.

"

Xaxyx wrote:

the player has sacrificed *nothing* to achieve this end

This is something that Mark would actually agree with judging from his post, but you made it sound like he didn't agree.

When you have a second item in your stash, you aren't sacrificing the current good item you have for better sockets, your only costs are orbs and time.

Marks whole post assumed you were working with AT LEAST 2 items, one you were wearing, and one in your stash. He merely suggested that you may sacrifice the explicit mods you have on your current item for the 6L + 'different' explicit mods that you have on the 6L item. This is where the choice comes in, you choose between which of the 2 items you use, and explicit mods & sockets/links are indeed 2 different 'areas' of progression.

Nothing Mark actually said was wrong, unless of course you twist his words and apply it to a different situation.

"

Metronomy wrote:

"

Xaxyx wrote:

the player has sacrificed *nothing* to achieve this end

This is something that Mark would actually agree with judging from his post, but you made it sound like he didn't agree.

Let's leave that up to Mark to decide, hmm?

"

When you have a second item in your stash, you aren't sacrificing the current good item you have for better sockets, your only costs are orbs and time.

Marks whole post assumed you were working with AT LEAST 2 items, one you were wearing, and one in your stash. He merely suggested that you may sacrifice the explicit mods you have on your current item for the 6L + 'different' explicit mods that you have on the 6L item. This is where the choice comes in, you choose between which of the 2 items you use, and explicit mods & sockets/links are indeed 2 different 'areas' of progression.

Huh? This supposed "sacrifice" is no different than ANY time I might to choose to swap out a piece of gear. How does introducing sockets into the equation change that dynamic?

Normally, it's: Swap item A out for item B (theoretically "sacrificing" mods on A)

Now, it's: Reroll socket orbs on item B a zillion times, swap item A out for item B (theoretically "sacrificing" mods on A)

Thus the "sacrificing" has *absolutely nothing to do whatsoever* with the actual topic at hand, which is the zillions of iterations it takes to modify the sockets on soon-to-be-primary item B.

"

Nothing Mark actually said was wrong, unless of course you twist his words and apply it to a different situation.

Nothing Mark actually said was right, unless of course you twist his words and apply it to to a different situation.

Has anyone actually done the math as to the chances of crafting a 6L?

"

Singakiwi wrote:

Has anyone actually done the math as to the chances of crafting a 6L?

Yes, it's buried in this thread somewhere. I vaguely recall it being approximately 1 in 300 for any given attempt.

This post is directed at those "6L is not required, its a victory lap NOT endgame" supporters.

This has been illustrated before but I dont know why it hasnt been done like this.

Since Pants are NOT in the game currently, players can beat it without a specific plant slot, they have balanced the game etc etc etc...

Lets say that upon entering end game maps, there is a chance to drop "Shards of Armor" that would be combined into an "orb of armor" that allows a player to wear pants!

The trick is that shards of armor are somewhat rare, and it takes say 100 shards of armor to get an orb of armor. Though you have to "identify" a shard of armor to see how many shards are contained in order to combine it with other shards into the orb. Sounds pretty simple. Get a "?" shard, identify it, combine it into your stack, collect 100 and you can wear pants!!!!

The catch? Lets say that each time you identify the shard, you run the risk of it "rolling" anywhere from a -100 value to a +100 value. Meaning, you can potentially collect 99 shards, and roll a -100 shard and have to start all over... So in reality its a complete crap shoot to get your orb of armor. Also, there is a higher chance you will roll a negative number then a positive number meaning its really tough to go about "progressively" getting these shards and you pretty much have to chance getting the 100+ shard roll to get pants...

Now, Your a lvl 80 (insert class here)... Youve succesfully done ALL the maps and gotten GREAT GEAR! EVEN a 6L!! You feel awesome. The next step? Getting PANTS! how long will you stick around and keep striving for pants if the system was completely random? What about if some n00b who hit lvl 60 and ran his first map got lucky with a 100+shard roll and HE has pants.. But you cant get pants... Oh, you could save a year for 1,500 "?" Shards and potentially trade for an orb of armor, but besides that your chances of getting that armor are slim to none. You go to PvP and that lvl 60 is now lvl 73 and a full 7 levels lower than you, but because he was able to wear pants, his stats are much greater than yours and he is able to beat you 1v1 time and time again, eventhough hes a lower level and his "advantage" was only based upon sheer luck of the roll...

Is that a game you want to play? I wouldnt... video linked about how we feel "rewarded" during video games was very true... Its a matter of reward OVER time spent. Skill SHOULD speed that process up in SOME areas. However, players will NOT keep coming back for pure randomness... The shard system seems like it would be fair if you could only roll positive numbers thus allowing you to progress. Maybe limit a + number so you cannot roll it in one roll, but let you WORK for it.

THIS is a system that rewards time and work, THIS is what keeps players coming back. Make it easy? NO. Make it a "handout" NO. Make it attainable through work and not chance? YES!!!!!!!

"

clinx1337 wrote:

Lets say that upon entering end game maps, there is a chance to drop "Shards of Armor" that would be combined into an "orb of armor" that allows a player to wear pants!

Well golly gee whiz, clinx, your example can't possibly make for a useful comparison, since pants are clearly *nothing* at all like 6L, no sir. Pants, you see, would be equipment. And equipment can't work like 6L because 6L is about skills, not equipment, even though 6L comes from sockets in equipment, and even though skills come from gems which are found in the same manner as equipment. Also, illusions something something.

Plus, if you added pants to the game, then the game couldn't be won without pants, even though we can finish the game without pants now, and even though the game can't actually be finished. So you'd retroactively make them required to finish, unlike 6L which can't ever be required for any reason, and even though no other equipment is ever actually required, except when it is.

I hope I've helped clarify why your argument is in fact complete pants. Tune in next week for another exciting episode of Path of Rationalization.

"

Xaxyx wrote:

"

Singakiwi wrote:

Has anyone actually done the math as to the chances of crafting a 6L?

Yes, it's buried in this thread somewhere. I vaguely recall it being approximately 1 in 300 for any given attempt.

Chris posted the 1 in 300 figure months ago, and some theorycrafting as to the process has backed up that figure.

Though someone who had a bot/exploit thing several patches ago which could use vendors to generate and view thousands of items said the 6s items that the vendors generated were only 6l like 1 in 1000 times, but this doesn't really match up to my personal experience and what I hear in game (never heard of someone failing after 1500 fusings, which would be very possible if it was 1/1000).