...::: SFL Poll results and conclusions :::...
|
Then go play D3?
Or don't trade, and go farm for what you want instead of crying about it. The silent majority.
|
|
|
over the years i've actually played more D2 offline than online. having a massive online economy that cheapens everything is the main reason
|
|
" This post is a little old but I'll respond to it anyway. What evidence is there that they wouldn't be happy with what they got? I remember on the looting issues people saying that people didn't know what they wanted and the game was better with only FFA or SA. As it turns out people did know what they wanted and the player base is happier now. I think that any form of a SFL would help. Of course not everyone would be perfectly happy with it but it would go a long way to satisfy many of the people that want one. However I see no indication that GGG will ever do this. They are acting like they can fix the issues with the current game but thats just a pipe dream. Standard Forever
|
|
"The strongest evidence is: they have it already. Although I should qualify that; they already have their namesake feature. You can play solo self-found in Standard and nobody will stop you; watching some solo races shows players can succeed even under those conditions (and in Hardcore, too). You even have self-found with increased drop rates in the form of Descent events. Thus, "Self-Found League" supporters are not, in fact, advocating GGG make self-found more possible, because we already have the functionality. Instead, they're advocating different changes: perhaps increased drop rates, or perhaps making Descent a permanent (or at least longer-lasting) league. Beneath it all, these are the types of changes which the group is actually lobbying for, although the specific adjustment varies from SFLer to SFLer. That's why the nomenclature of "Self-Found League" is such genius, because it obfuscates the true goals which its adherents actually pursue, bringing together disparate elements who cannot agree on a solution. You need to admit "Permanent Descent League" and "Increased Drop Rate League" just don't have the same ring to them, and the beauty of the manipulation is the SFL draws in both of these groups, and several others, as supporters. It's discussing the specifics of how to fix self-found which splinters the group... which is why a lot of SFL discussion is equally Utopian and vague. SFLers believe they will some day receive the Promised Land, yet usually cannot describe it in any way which explains why the league should be separate, instead of a global adjustment to all leagues. But the truth about the Garden of Eden is that it doesn't exist. Thus, those who wish to journey there are, indeed, very likely to be unhappy if they get what they wish for. 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 Feb 7, 2014, 1:03:42 AM
|
|
" I'm positive that the idea for a league came up only because players are smart enough to know that GGG isn't going to gut the whole game. Its far more likely that they would consider a new league versus removing trading in the current leagues or any other major changes. Also there is a big difference between possible and playable (fun). Some of the supporters would argue that the game is horrible Self found in the current leagues. " The main point of a SFL is to remove trading, so calling it an increased drops league would be dumb. Not to mention that a SFL wouldn't have to have increased drops to be a SFL. " Maybe because there has been no ideas by anyone on how a global adjustment could possibly work. Trading and flipping is simply better time spent than farming and GGG will never increase the drop rate to any noticable level. They care too much about the economy. Standard Forever Last edited by iamstryker#5952 on Feb 7, 2014, 1:15:01 AM
|
|
|
If this hasn't been said already, I'm saying it again.
Those numbers are tiny in comparison to the player base, and represent nothing. The only accurate way to get that poll would be to show every single player. Now not every single player would do the poll, which is my point. You'd get a more accurate sample size. "Minions of your minions are your minion's minions, not your minions." - Mark
|
|
"No, it's not; that's like saying the main point of buying something is giving away your money. Trading is the coin which SFL supporters wish to sacrifice in order to buy something else (in part because it's worthless to them). As such, the main point is most definitely not the lack of trading, but whatever it is they want to get in exchange. There is a crucial distinction between the principle which is primary to self-interest, and the principle which unifies. SFL supporters are held together by a common principle, thus it defines the movement; however, this does not mean they agree on what is most important. 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 Feb 7, 2014, 1:32:11 AM
|
|
" Your attacking the idea of a SFL as a whole and the problem is people want it for different reasons. A SFL is simply a league without trading regardless of there being other changes or no other changes at all. Standard Forever
|
|
"If you actually read what I've been saying, my "attack" at present is far more targeted on the "simply" element and far less on the "SFL as a whole." By now I believe my opinion on "SFL as a whole" is well-known to most regular forumers as well as the devs; I needn't be overly redundant. Therefore, I'm instead trying to make this point: SFL supporters are united not by the positive change they want to see in the game, but by the cost which they're willing to pay for it (which is: giving away an option they're not inclined to use anyway). As such, what one would decide to give the SFL in exchange for the agreed-upon cost is very unlikely to satisfy everyone... most likely not even a majority of SFL supporters. What really matters in a transaction is the payoff, not the cost. My aim here is not to throw hatred upon the movement; quite the opposite. I want to see some suggestions. Perhaps someone has the creativity required to think of something which will work, perhaps as a change to the game as a whole, perhaps as a SFL (it would have to be a pretty brilliant idea to make me reverse my stance, but it's nevertheless possible). The best way to foster such solutions is to take a hard, long, and honest look at the problems. 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 Feb 7, 2014, 1:51:59 AM
|
|
" How do they not see it as a positive change? Their asking for what they perceive as a negative change? " It is possible to use trading now but still like the idea of a SFL balanced for no trading at all. Standard Forever
|
|
