New players coming into an old game do not expect to play version 1.00
They expect to play some sort of updated version, that has been patched, altered and many of the original bugs and exploits fixed.
For sure.
"
DalaiLama wrote:
They also expect legacy items when there is character persistence.
No, why should they? Just out of tradition?
"
DalaiLama wrote:
PvP players expect others to use every dirty trick possible against them. They want to use every dirty trick they can get ahold of to defeat their opponents.
Every legal trick, yes. Every trick that is possible under the current game rules, which should not include legacy items.
"
DalaiLama wrote:
PvP is never about balance, it is about thrashing your enemy quickly and soundly.
I do not agree. PvP (and gaming in general) is about using the current game rules in the smartest way possible, finding synergies, min-maxing, playing rock-paper-scissors with your opponent and the like.
In PoE, every player can potentially (barring reasonable time constraints) farm the best items for his chosen build, practice until perfection and so on. Everyone has the same fair chances. Legacy items break this balance, unless you think that buying legacy items is viable and will stay that way in the future.
"
DalaiLama wrote:
Spoiler
For comparison - example 1 Below will be similar to the mod changing with the database mod record box and not needing to be divined, and example 2 below will be a mod that does not change with the record box and ends up being a legacy mod unless divined.
Example 1 - GGG says - Next patch we will be changing all "_" underscores to spaces.
Example 2 - Next patch, we will no longer allow underscores. Players with underscores must
find a new name, and it still must be unique.
For example 1 - the characters named "Justin_Bieber" "_Justin_Bieber_" and "JustinBieber_" will just become "Justin Bieber", " Justin Bieber" " Justin Bieber " and "Justin Bieber " with no effort involved.
For example 2 - the characters named as above would all have to find new names and since "JustinBieber" was already taken they would have to think of a new name or variant.
Each of those players has to do this for sixteen different characters on each of their five thousand accounts.
This is a crude comparison of why GGG currently chose to have legacy items. Whether GGG will change them and their database structure in the future I do not know. GGG's stance on this (technical difficulties aside) may very well be that they would prefer to nerf/buff/update all items and let the chip fall where they may.
Unlike character names, unique items do not have to be unique (surprisingly). So your example is irrelevant.
I don't have much of a problem with a balanced legacy because I don't think it has that much of an impact on the game. That doesn't mean I like them but I don't think its a contradiction if I am focusing on OP legacies and not every legacy in the game. The difference between a legacy Soul Taker and a Death Rush ring is night and day.
Oh and I agree with you that a buffed unique should be automatically upgraded.
You could also get Death Rush + Gifts from above as race rewards, and they may drop again in the future. "Old Style" soul taker/ kaom won't.
Anarchy/Onslaught T shirt
Domination/Nemesis T shirt
Tempest/War Bands T shirt
this is IT world. one of only few domains completely under human control. ive learned 10 years ago that there is no 'impossible' in IT.
Truly random numbers. Impossible. They could and would break quantum encryption.
Securing a computer when someone has physical access to it.
Here's the kicker:
Unbreakable encryption.
If it is impossible the break the encryption, then cracking the encryption is something that is impossible in IT.
If it is possible to break the encryption, then the making an unbreakable encryption is something that is impossible in IT.
You could even make a nice little IF/THEN Basic loop out of this.
due to existence of brute force decription current (realistic, not some theoretical stuff like quantum solutions) encryption is based on entropy 'strength' compared to available decrypting 'power' measured in bits or whatever measure you use. if difference between effort required to crack the code and your solution strength is 'greater then' you are 'statistically safe' (brute force just like rng can crack it on first try..)
if you want more than less reliable rng you can use voltmeter, some resistor and build your seed from it by collecting white noise from it. simple, not-deterministic from computation standpoint, reliable, frequently used, impossible to determine the seed from outside, easy to scale.
and you perfectly know well that you are clutching at straws and ignoring the main point of my post: 'technical difficulties' listed as reason to keep legacy stuff are more than less fallacy and deception
lol don't argue with him, there's no such thing as something 'if there's a will there's a way' when it comes to security.
You can have the msot amazing encryption ever and if all your users have passwords like nothing, password, passw0Rd, etc. it's only a matter of time before they get hacked.
It's why Blizzard and GGG constgantly have to deny being hacked, yet people keep losing their accoutns - they pick stupid passwords and do other stupid things people in the programming world have no control over; you can't outprogram human behavior.
My Keystone Ideas: http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/744282
lol don't argue with him, there's no such thing as something 'if there's a will there's a way' when it comes to security.
You can have the msot amazing encryption ever and if all your users have passwords like nothing, password, passw0Rd, etc. it's only a matter of time before they get hacked.
It's why Blizzard and GGG constgantly have to deny being hacked, yet people keep losing their accoutns - they pick stupid passwords and do other stupid things people in the programming world have no control over; you can't outprogram human behavior.
And in today's enviroment you don't even have to have a bad password (though social engineering is still the easiest way) with the new man in the middle attacks. Just because we can be as secure as possible, it doesn't mean that all the software and hardware we have are. We can have built in exploits (thank you nsa) that reduce encryption, encryption skeleton keys, hardware/software backdoors and vendors of software with known exploits (again, thank you nsa for paying people to find and use these compared to fixing them). We have zero day exploits popping up everywhere, anti virus software makers paid by the nsa to ignore rootkits and virii, security certificates that don't mean squat (because its possible to fake them) and other issues. And adobe is over 50% of ALL infections on the internet across the world by itself due to zero days and that its exploitable/buggy as hell (reader and flash are ~57% of every virus infection that has ever happened) because of those buffer overruns that run whatever code they want (with java being almost 20%).
Look at target for a recent example.... the whole thing is a cluster**** thanks to certain government agencies, microsoft, vendors that track FAR to much info about everything, security software that is designed to fail, and big players in the security field that actively work at compromising everyone's security for profit.
Its pretty much that nothing exists that can be called secure anymore unless you personally make every piece of hardware and chip, make your own OS from scratch, write all the firmware for all hardware, make your own personal security certificate, then make all your own software to run on them....... and You'll have to host your own pipeline to the internet (because the isp can compromise it also, with no wireless able to be used) and make sure no one touches any of your hardware ever.
Last edited by Jiero#2499 on Feb 12, 2014, 4:13:26 PM
this is IT world. one of only few domains completely under human control. ive learned 10 years ago that there is no 'impossible' in IT.
Truly random numbers. Impossible. They could and would break quantum encryption.
Securing a computer when someone has physical access to it.
Here's the kicker:
Unbreakable encryption.
If it is impossible the break the encryption, then cracking the encryption is something that is impossible in IT.
If it is possible to break the encryption, then the making an unbreakable encryption is something that is impossible in IT.
You could even make a nice little IF/THEN Basic loop out of this.
due to existence of brute force decription current (realistic, not some theoretical stuff like quantum solutions) encryption is based on entropy 'strength' compared to available decrypting 'power' measured in bits or whatever measure you use. if difference between effort required to crack the code and your solution strength is 'greater then' you are 'statistically safe' (brute force just like rng can crack it on first try..)
if you want more than less reliable rng you can use voltmeter, some resistor and build your seed from it by collecting white noise from it. simple, not-deterministic from computation standpoint, reliable, frequently used, impossible to determine the seed from outside, easy to scale.
and you perfectly know well that you are clutching at straws and ignoring the main point of my post: 'technical difficulties' listed as reason to keep legacy stuff are more than less fallacy and deception
You totally missed his point, truly random numbers are not possible. Arguing about possibility versus impossibility is idiotic in IT in general.
As an example, you can code a website in ASM if you want. So when you ask someone to code a non trivial website in ASM in a few days, of course a decent person might say "its impossible". What they are saying is not that its literally impossible, more than its feasibly impossible
No one was arguing about impossibility, and only the uneducated or naive argue from that point of view (if they are arguing about it literally)
Last edited by deteego#6606 on Feb 12, 2014, 5:50:12 PM
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 12, 2014, 9:59:08 PM
"Legacy" items are a natural consequence of our implementation of the mod system. When a mod is rolled, the result is stored in the item. The maximum and minimum values are never used except for the initial roll and any subsequent rerolls (Blessed Orb, Divine Orb, etc).
This means that if we change the max/min values for a mod, e.g. the +life mod on Kaom's Heart, this does not directly effect any existing items, only new ones that drop or old ones that are rerolled. Another way to create legacy items (at least for Uniques) is if we add or remove entire mods from the item.
This also means that we do not have legacy items of skill gems or currency, because they do not have mods. We do not have legacy passive skill trees because we do not support multiple trees.
So legacy items only happen when we make numerical changes to min/max values of mods, or if we add/remove entire mods from a unique. We do not create legacy items when we change what mods do (this is fairly rare, though).
If we really wanted, we could painstakingly go through every item on the realm and perform an "item migration" to update legacy items to their modern equivalents. However, this is something of a last resort; it has several downsides:
-it requires substantial downtime of the entire realm for an unknown-but-lengthy period of time.
-it requires manually looking at every individual item we wanted to update and writing a custom upgrade script for each one.
-any mistakes or reversals of balance affect the entire realm's items, rather than a handful of new items dropped between patches.
-pissing off often long-time players by (potentially) destroying significant wealth right out of their stash.
-we'd have to do it all again every time we made changes that would result in a legacy item.
I'm not saying legacy items are all sunshine and rainbows, but they are at worst a necessary evil.
Not that this has the slightest thing to do with Legacy items, but...
"
DalaiLama wrote:
"
sidtherat wrote:
this is IT world. one of only few domains completely under human control. ive learned 10 years ago that there is no 'impossible' in IT.
Truly random numbers. Impossible. They could and would break quantum encryption.
"
deteego wrote:
truly random numbers are not possible. Arguing about possibility versus impossibility is idiotic in IT in general.
random.org has been offering truly random number generation, most of it free, over its website for over 15 years now. "The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs." One might say it is still impossible for computers to generate truly random numbers, but something from nature can generate it which the computer can record and retransmit, which serves almost exactly the same purpose. However, if we interpret "generate" in such a way, then computers don't generate pseudo-random numbers either; they merely call them off of a list. Therefore, for "generate" to have meaning, it must mean "to pull the data and use it in some manner;" therefore, computers can generate truly random numbers.
deteego, Dalai: you are simply flat-out wrong, not as a matter of theory, but as a matter of practice... for over a decade.
Edit: I went to a random university lab computer (not my own, with a generic account) and did a Google search for "true random number generator." Random.org was the first hit. Obviously you didn't bother with one lick of research before claiming something was impossible.
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 13, 2014, 12:33:28 AM
