Self-Found (League) [Thread outdated!]
" Huh???? What???? OK look.. at no point have I ever gotten the required materials to craft any single item required to pass a gear check much less all of them. I have, however, found more than ample currency to buy the stuff required to pass those same gear checks... more than ample. At a rough guess I'd put trading at 2 orders of magnitude more efficient than farming/crafting. How is that not an advantage? " As always, you and I are seeing this very differently. I'd say that items which are worth a crapload more than 1 chaos to me are trading for 1 chaos and less. By that, what I mean is that I'd be happy to farm up 2 or 3 chaos worth of orbs for stuff that I can get for a few GCP. Therein is the nature of my concern. " Yeah, and arguably the deepest skill in the game. It is not "in a way" PvP. It is exactly PvP. " If you mean "selling" then I wouldn't know because I have no intention of ever dirtying myself in the whole trading mess. But I can guarantee you that I've bought 6 or 7 items now that would have been worth a few shards from the vendor and got GCP from me. Obviously 6 or 7 people found it a better alternative than vendoring. " Do you honestly believe that crafting/farming can EVER be balanced with trading. There is a reason people trade in the real world. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if GGG could pull it off. I just don't currently see how. So yeah, it IS about playing a different game on the same servers. It's the difference between playing "path of textiles" and "path of exiles". I don't trade. I don't group. My comments reflect that.
|
|
" Hardly. They've already committed to additional leagues, free and paid, so creating a league for SFL shouldn't be a major issue. Moreover, what makes you believe we're the minority... |
|
"First off, grouping isn't free. You need to coordinate how the map costs are split, you need to coordinate who the Culling MFer is going to be. These tasks require effort, and as a result they deserve some reward. The problem is that they currently provide totally insane amounts of reward, far exceeding the "costs." There should be "group benefits," but they should not be as large as they are currently. After appropriately nerfing a group bonus to reasonable levels, the overall situation for everyone can be increased without making the game easier overall. For example, let's say group MF Culling support currently provides a 5x bonus. If we nerf that down to a more reasonable 2.25x bonus, we can then 2x-buff the overall situation; groups would then have an effective 4.5x bonus (slight nerf), while solo would be twice as well off as it is now. For those truly min/maxing the game, the game just became harder; the game only becomes easier for those who were struggling before. This is the philosophy behind my "Halve MF" suggestion. It's a serious suggestion to help bridge the gap between solo play and group play, mostly by attacking the Culling MF problem. It doesn't remove Culling MF completely, because that wouldn't be fair; as I said earlier, coordinating specialized roles in group play takes time and therefore deserves a moderate reward. In terms of splitting map costs, it's a little trickier of a problem, but I still have a suggestion: 1) Set the default number of portals opened by the map device to 1. 2) Allow Jeweler's Orbs to be put into the map device and consumed by pressing the button. Each Jeweler's opens one additional portal, up to 6. You don't need to be the map maker to add a Jeweler's this way. 3) Allow Orbs of Fusing to be put into the map device and consumed by pressing the button. Each Fusing closes a portal, but provides more Item Quantity for the portals remaining; this is visually indicated by the remaining portals getting a more "intensified" graphic. Each Fusing limits the max number of portals by one, with the highest degree of Fusing intensification being 5 Fusings and maximum 1 portal. Only the map maker could add Fusings this way. Numbers are a bit of a problem for that one, and would require some tuning, but the idea would be that low maps could be run on a budget by skipping the Jewelers and just running them solo, while high maps could be run solo with increased quantity (at the low cost, for high maps anyway, of a few Fusings), compensating for the map-cost-splitting advantage which groups have. The system is also customizable to smaller-than-full groups (2 to 4 players). Maybe these aren't the best way to solve these problems; perhaps someone else could think of a better way to fix these problems. But that's not the point. The point is that problems have solutions, but running away blinds you to them. "That you could possibly craft? I believe that. However, you could easily farm something just as good with the same effort that it would take for you to farm 1 Chaos (assuming at least 300 IIR). One quirk with the crafting system is that Chaos use is pretty much discouraged until you get to around level 70 maps, when they become the single most important map crafting ingredient; trading your Chaos Orbs away in Cruel or Merciless provides a nice short-term benefit, but you'll be missing them later when they reach their crafting potential. Jewelers, Fusings and Chromatics, on the other hand, have extreme utility early on and the idea of trading them away for short-term gain in Cruel or Merciless is silly. "Crafting becomes achievable when you reach a relative plateau in development. As long as you are continually upgrading through non-crafting means, crafting doesn't make sense; why invest in an item which could be gone tomorrow, when you could save your orbs to craft on something which comes later (or trade for the thing which comes later, but lose some of your ability to improve it)? Getting rid of trading wouldn't magically solve that problem. Remove trading and increase drop rates... ... and players would still hoard their orbs, and only use them when they need to in order to progress, and even then only the minimum necessary to get by. It's only when players reach milestones that they actually begin crafting voluntarily. If they have reached the stage where max links on gloves is possible, and their gloves are a stronger item than their helm or boots, they'll 4L their gloves, but no one burns Jeweler's or Fusings trying to 3L their gloves. If they've found a decent chest and can 5L their chest, they'll start trying to do so, but no one tries this before they find a really strong chest late in Cruel at the earliest. If they've found The Chest They'll Wear For the Entire Forseeable Future (preferably unique) in Act 3 Merci or low maps, they'll start trying to 6L it. If you want to increase actual crafting, the solution isn't removing the ability to trade; it's making the game harder. Force players to use those orbs before they hit milestones, and they will; don't force them, and they won't. It's that simple. "Yet, despite your lack of experience, you feel compelled to assert your opinion. Chances are you haven't played to maps, and thus don't appreciate the value of a Chaos. Most of my reply to FarmerTed's post applies to yours as well. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Aug 29, 2013, 2:21:26 AM
|
|
" That's really grasping imo. That coordination of cost is incredibly minor "Guys, I need 3x chisel" "Here you go bro". If people can't manage shit like that, it's a shit group, in which case you should be comparing it to a shit player. That's not even really a functional group. Edit: Obviously, I'm not going to point out the huge amount of advantages a group has. There are potentially huge advantages to trading, massive. It can never be a disadvantage unless you screw yourself. You have a much larger sample size for selection (actual selection at that, not just hope and estimated cost) and practically at far reduced prices compared to crafting, throughout the game. Yes, you can craft too, or farm. They are not exclusive. Trying to downplay the potential advantages of trading is insane, you may not be able to use it effectively, but that is another issue altogether. " That is not even close to accurate, I could easily farm currency at lower level with far less risk, far quicker and select something to buy. You are *hoping* for something. What are the chances something you want or need drops? That likely also implies you want something relatively near your level, which would be more dangerous and likely slower too. |
|
" Just changing a core aspect of the game. The only example of a "league" that they have made that does that is Descent. You're a vocal minority. "Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're right!" Henry Ford
|
|
" A minority enough to make half dozen threads, one of which reached almost one hundred pages. Yes i like this game. i mean have you seen how powerful is the barbarian
|
|
|
Edit: Goddamn double post.
|
|
" What is it that you're so frightened of? |
|
|
I really don't understand why people put so much time and energy in to opposing something that doesn't affect them in any way. I mean, I can only assume that the people that are opposing the creation of a SFL would not be playing in it if one were to exist.. so what does it matter to you?
Clearly there are a number of people that would be interested in a SFL. So it ultimately just amounts to a business decision for GGG. Would the potential benefit of providing those that are interested in a SFL justify any potential costs in creating one? I'm fairly sure that GGG is the only one that can answer that question. Hell, even if GGG determines that it is not in their self-interest to provide a SFL for players, they have already stated that they intend to have paid leagues, I personally wouldn't mind them taking the crowd-funding approach with this. Then those of us that are interested can either put up or shut up. |
|
"I imagine a fair point is that a lot of it is a one-time cost of finding several other players who are not shit themselves. This, however, is work; if you aren't careful, it could be more like "Guys, I need 3x chisel"... ... ... ... ... "Hello?" This is assuming, of course, that this a regular group. With public groups, however, you're paying that "one-time cost" over and over again. Furthermore, the game shouldn't assume that you are always playing with players you can vouch for; taking risks on public groups and playing with new people shouldn't be insanely discouraged. I think we can agree that the current party-play environment provides so much party bonus that shit players are not sufficiently discouraged, especially when the major disqualifier is attitude instead of a gearcheck or build choice (we'll call this type of shit player "assholes"). The sense of community and tone in public parties is a major problem, because the desire to form groups, regardless of the quality and nonsense that is put up with, is made unnaturally strong by the OP group bonuses; therefore, assholes are currently tolerated far more than they should be, and community-led corrective measures which should happen don't. This asshole-tolerance, in turn, intensifies the solo movement, because principled people don't like gaming with assholes. Which helps fuel potentially drastic solo-centric suggestions, both by turning people off of group play and by making them dislike group players, and thus unsympathetic towards them. My point being: Don't fall into the trap of letting some idiot blind you. If party play was really that effortless, you'd do it yourself. Obviously there's something disincentivizing you from doing so. Do you think that doesn't apply to other people too? Yet despite the bad part of socializing in a computer game, we want players to find and forge friendships within the game, and the best way for them to do that is to stick their neck out and give the thing a try. If you're able to maintain a regular group with quality players, you should have a noticeable net profit, to reward you for having tight social interactions with other players. If you group with randoms, you should do just about as well as running solo, even after factoring in a certain amount of exposure to shit players; this means it wouldn't really cost anything, and would have the opportunity to establish a better, regular group... but that opportunity would be the only reward you're playing for, pushing you to actually find friends, and thus encourage neither solo players do partake in something they disdain, nor the established acceptance of asshole behavior. "Docks and low maps are both high enough level, and could be farmed with zero danger at over 300 IIR, plus some amount of IIQ. Perhaps you're assuming something other than a dedicated MF build, or a group with dedicated MF Culling support; however, these are by far the biggest contributors to the economy, and thus for the most part set the prices. From their perspective, such pricing is absolutely fair and not particularly advantageous to either party. If you are playing some other kind of build, then you are essentially on their turf, and they make the rules, not you. I know this, because although my 100+/250+ summoner is almost self-found in terms of "I haven't bought much with trading," I've sold a lot. And I've played melee in A3M and lowmaps before, so I know what melee's like too on zero MF. So believe me: Yes, I find the crap that people buy for 1 Chaos as often as I find 1 actual Chaos; you probably wouldn't. Do you think that's a problem with trading? Because I think that's more accurately described as a problem with IIQ/IIR and a problem with build balance. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Aug 29, 2013, 3:09:33 AM
|
|
