Open Letter to Qarl, regarding topics discussed in RMT thread

"

Veta321 wrote:

"

Lord_Kamster wrote:

Qarl, if you're still reading, I have a serious suggestion. If you keep the RNG as brutal as it is for linking gear, because you seem to think we enjoy it, at least do NOT punish us. If I try to 5L a chest I should not be going back to 1 or 2 links when I had 4, effectively being forced to keep a 2-exalt unique in my stash for two months like I have, instead of being able to get use out of it. Instead of the basis of the game hinging on RNG, start making a switch towards progression. Easiest solution to start would be to make it possible to not lose links when using a fusing. Otherwise, yeah--I'm gonna be hoarding 200 fusings which is what you're telling us is the "problem" with raising drop rates. We're hoarding them precisely because of the broken underlying systems!!!

So, I'm not Qarl but I felt the need to respond to this. This was the stated and conceptual purpose of the Eternal Orb. The Eternal Orb imprints the properties of your gear and then you can spend tons of fusings or what have you, and if no acceptable outcome is met, you can reprint the old item properties, including links/sockets/colors. Of course, as we know, this is not how Eternal Orbs are used. In practice users have valued the property modification utility of Eternals i.e. Eternal-Exalting, much over any utility in item accommodation crafting, i.e. linking, socketing, or coloring.

So in practice very few players use Eternals for their conceptually intended purpose, which is to avoid exactly what you described (although it's possible GGG had a different intention than the original suggestion). I should note, if you spent such a significant amount of fusings trying to link your item, maybe it would have been a good idea to imprint it with an Eternal Orb.

I made a thread some time back (got no dev feedback) suggesting the creation of an orb that will preserve links. I was told to use an Eternal! That's just madness considering their price. I may as well just farm for two months and then purchase a 6L.

I think it would be interesting to introduce a new eternal-type orb. Make it common, and it would only preserve colors/sockets/links, the point being to allow you to try to get more links, or maybe try different gem combinations on, say, a 5L chest you originally had to roll 400 chromes on to get just right.

Do this and you give players safety nets and the ability to experiment, all while diminishing frustration. And you get to keep the harshness of the current fusing system, where it's possible to lose links.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I wasn't playing strictly self-found, but I'd still say 76. This is because I realized that maps are not gated by trading, but by partying; I joined a group, and paid fees when asked

Ooookay then.

"

Lord_Kamster wrote:

I think it would be interesting to introduce a new eternal-type orb. Make it common, and it would only preserve colors/sockets/links, the point being to allow you to try to get more links, or maybe try different gem combinations on, say, a 5L chest you originally had to roll 400 chromes on to get just right.

Do this and you give players safety nets and the ability to experiment, all while diminishing frustration. And you get to keep the harshness of the current fusing system, where it's possible to lose links.

I agree. Simply increasing Eternal drop rate won't abate the problem because each marginal Eternal will more likely be used for item modification. Additionally, an orb that does half of what an Eternal does would seem redundant. My preferred solution would be dividing the utility of Eternals into (2) orbs. One Eternal-type orb for sockets/links/colors/quality/implicits and another for property modification. In essence, one deals with the physical condition of items and the other deals with the magical condition.

"

Qarl wrote:

"

gr00grams wrote:

...

2. I can let some other fool/rich folk blow all his orbs, and buy it.

...

I have hoarded orbs and never crafted since.

...

So you do use your orbs for buying things then?

I would consider that using them (perhaps that was not clear in my original question.

I could reword it:

Do you believe hoarding and never crafting with, or buying something with that currency, is always the correct choice?

The thing is, the game is designed for having some form of currency sink to defeat inflation, as per design goals.

Buying something is NOT a currency sink. If everyone traded and nobody crafted, no orbs will be consumed and disappear from the pool of currency, and something that is worth 2EX at the start of the league will be priced at 10EX at the end of it.

Ideally you should have crafting consume orbs at the rate that they are produced, or somewhat near to it. This does not happen, especially for new leagues. At the start, people hoard, and hoard, and hoard some more. Or they go for the illegal RMT route and then start crafting. Nobody bothers to craft with what drops for them, and most players leave with the impression that you have a brick wall preventing you from 70+ maps, because there is no apparent progress unless you

a) get lucky;
b) RMT
c) trade.

The crafting system that draws players quickly disillusions them from using it, and orbs become gold/silver/bronze, instead of being used to craft. This coupled with the inherent difficulty of trading makes people shy away from higher content, and not bother to try to even get there.

What most players would agree with me with is to ensure that the current system of crafting gives you a tangible indication of progress, no matter how small. Let's face it, the chances of 6Linking an item don't change whether you burned 2 fusings or 2000. For a player to see no appreciable difference between the time he used his first fusing orb or his five hundredth, or to see no progress at all before getting Tyrannical even after spending 3000 alterations, is annoying.

If we wanted inconsistent and truly random RNG we would play the lottery. That at least have tangible real-life rewards.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I find all three of those things to be pretty damn exciting.

Winning the lottery is fun. Taking away someone's winnings from a previous lottery win is unfun. And a simple trip to any casino will confirm gambling is fun, at least to a great many.

Don't get me wrong, I've explained in this thread how there is a serious, fundamental flaw with the game's gambling system. However, the core design behind that system — the idea of, instead of using a universal gambling fuel like gold, splitting that gold into an entire slew of separate gambling materials — well, that's just genius. Such genius, in fact, that even with its ridiculous disincentive against using orbs, I sometimes find myself unable to help myself, knowing I'm losing value but sucking it up because I'm using a gambling system which, at the very core of its design, is truly amazing.

As such, I view PoE's gambling system not as something to hate, but as a beloved system which, unfortunately, has one hell of a monkey on its back. The only point I'll readily grant its detractors is: no, it's not a crafting system, it's a gambling system. But that doesn't make it bad; it just means you need to hold it to gambling system standards, not crafting system standards.

I guess bad drops aren't fun. But bad luck streaks are, I guess, just another one of those things about the otherwise fun-filled casino.

If I wanted to gamble, I'd go to a casino, not here.

That's the thing: You're forcing people who do not want to gamble to do it. Is that fun? In the minds of GGG, maybe. But there's a reason why Steam stats, although admittedly not painting the full picture of things, show a decline in player count since 1.0.0

"

Sachiru wrote:

The crafting system that draws players quickly disillusions them from using it, and orbs become gold/silver/bronze, instead of being used to craft. This coupled with the inherent difficulty of trading makes people shy away from higher content, and not bother to try to even get there.

What most players would agree with me with is to ensure that the current system of crafting gives you a tangible indication of progress, no matter how small. Let's face it, the chances of 6Linking an item don't change whether you burned 2 fusings or 2000. For a player to see no appreciable difference between the time he used his first fusing orb or his five hundredth, or to see no progress at all before getting Tyrannical even after spending 3000 alterations, is annoying.

If we wanted inconsistent and truly random RNG we would play the lottery. That at least have tangible real-life rewards.

Well said

"

Sachiru wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Spoiler

I find all three of those things to be pretty damn exciting.

Winning the lottery is fun. Taking away someone's winnings from a previous lottery win is unfun. And a simple trip to any casino will confirm gambling is fun, at least to a great many.

Don't get me wrong, I've explained in this thread how there is a serious, fundamental flaw with the game's gambling system. However, the core design behind that system — the idea of, instead of using a universal gambling fuel like gold, splitting that gold into an entire slew of separate gambling materials — well, that's just genius. Such genius, in fact, that even with its ridiculous disincentive against using orbs, I sometimes find myself unable to help myself, knowing I'm losing value but sucking it up because I'm using a gambling system which, at the very core of its design, is truly amazing.

As such, I view PoE's gambling system not as something to hate, but as a beloved system which, unfortunately, has one hell of a monkey on its back. The only point I'll readily grant its detractors is: no, it's not a crafting system, it's a gambling system. But that doesn't make it bad; it just means you need to hold it to gambling system standards, not crafting system standards.

I guess bad drops aren't fun. But bad luck streaks are, I guess, just another one of those things about the otherwise fun-filled casino.

If I wanted to gamble, I'd go to a casino, not here.

That's the thing: You're forcing people who do not want to gamble to do it.

This is why it's important to have both optimal times to both charge and release the charge beam, to use the earlier analogy. Appropriate times to release are times which motivate consumption and create real demand by players who prefer gambling to trading, while times to charge are times which motivate non-consumption and provide real opportunities to trade away orbs for players who prefer trading to gambling.

Which means: no, we're not forcing players to gamble, we're forcing them to either gamble with the orbs themselves, or trade them away to those who do enjoy it (and get some kind of real value in exchange).

For the vast majority of players, offering this type of dichotomy is sufficient. Even if a particular player is hard to please and doesn't really like either, at least they get the choice of the lesser evil.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Which means: no, we're not forcing players to gamble, we're forcing them to either gamble with the orbs themselves, or trade them away to those who do enjoy it (and get some kind of real value in exchange).

For the vast majority of players, offering this type of dichotomy is sufficient. Even if a particular player is hard to please and doesn't really like either, at least they get the choice of the lesser evil.

Nobody's pulling any arms, but if you make one option considerably less efficient you are certainly 'nudging'.

And there's a third option for those that don't like either of the two - finding the item, but it seems it's mostly overlooked as a valid upgrade source these days, strangely.

"

raics wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

we're not forcing players to gamble, we're forcing them to either gamble with the orbs themselves, or trade them away to those who do enjoy it

Nobody's pulling any arms, but if you make one option considerably less efficient you are certainly 'nudging'.

You're preaching to the choir on that one. Most of my suggestions in this thread are centered on trying to make choosing between those two options more engaging than it is now.

"

raics wrote:

And there's a third option for those that don't like either of the two - finding the item, but it seems it's mostly overlooked as a valid upgrade source these days, strangely.

That is not a third option, because the real question is "I found these orbs, what do I do with them?"

I guess in a way "do nothing with the orbs you find" is a third option, but I think it's a fair assumption that in-game items should feel like they exist for a reason, thus it's not an option we're interesting in turning into a more appealing choice for players, at least for the purposes of this discussion. :)

It is worth noting, however, that the map system is kind of an underlying layer to give meaning to orbs even if players did pick the third option earlier — if they considered it useless to use orbs on gear before, they now have something to use their orbs on, with a very different psychology behind it.

Another reason for people hording orbs is that there is too much agreement in determining what is a very good item. This is related to the small affixes/postfixes pool. For 50+% of marauders, the 'best' armor as 3 resist affixes (chaos is better), + life and + armour. If there was more affixes available, you would be strongly encouraged to craft your own gear in order to get the best item for your build, since you would not find it on the market. At momement, the value of an armour is inverse proportional to its 'distance' from the perfect one.

In this regard, I endorse the new mechanics of VallOrb, it will definitely help about this.