Open Letter to Qarl, regarding topics discussed in RMT thread

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

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.

I still think the lack of third option is the proverbial 'root of all evil' here. If you think about it, the main problem is gear has to tick too many boxes to qualify as an upgrade.
- base item (not just any will do)
- gem slots (even more narrow, but fortunately it can be modified, although it can be tricky)
- mods
The reason crafting is so significant is it enables you to skip one of those, and trading enables you to skip all three. So, the amount of time required to obtain the item with any of those three methods should be comparable for them to be equally valid, but it isn't. Trading is so effective in this game that items should be vastly more expensive than they are now, but due to online nature of the game that isn't possible, items lose value way too fast. So, there's probably no quick, easy and dirty fix for the whole thing, the truth is trading probably shouldn't exist in a game with itemization this complex, or it should be severely limited.

Treating symptoms is all well and good - but only if you don't want to tackle the real problem.

"

Lord_Kamster wrote:

Except the majority of the playerbase is not MF. And we don't get anything of value in maps. We also shouldn't be forced into a build just to get currency to craft or trade.

"

kruemel2222 wrote:

Well, the very moment you pay an alch, 4 chisels and x chaos just to enter a map 2-4 chaos don't sound so great anymore, do they? On top of that, you will get all kinds of drops, therefore, you have to find someone who is willing to trade them for alchs, chisels and chaos orbs if you intent to chain higher level maps.

By a bit of MF i meant 10 - 20% from gear and auerseize (or whatever they are named) gloves which i leave on my characters forever if i dont find something godly. E: + cull on leap slam or secondary weapon
not sure why i should pay chaos to enter the maps? I just alch white map and that's it, never really found chisels IIQ bonus appealing.

"

Veta321 wrote:

Spoiler

Hello mara5a, I read through your indomitable wall of text. And I'm afraid you misinterpreted the OP, although it's likely you were responding to other posters. The OP definitely did not suggest increasing drop rates, although I have no specific problem with that given other adjustments.

The crux of this OP is this: the early game, "before level 65" as you describe it affords players less choice in optimal strategy. You are discouraged from using currency (crafting or trading), limited in skill experimentation and passive layout. All that appears to combine to give players the impression you seem to have, that the game "starts after 65" or at least much later than level 1. And that's really unfortunate because the game is brilliant, and doesn't need to put barriers up to accessibility or alienate players who can't stomach the ascetic optimal strategy. The optimal strategy should be fun.

But I digress, if you want a better understanding of why the OP was written read this post by ScrotieMcB:

if i get that correctly the problem is then that some orbs (augs for example) aren't really used and just get hoarded? I dont see a problem there, I usually buy some expensive unique after i get enough orbs so my stash gets cleaned here and there.
The other interpretation that would be the more true as i see it is that ScrotieMcB doesn't like that it is better in 99% of cases to save currency rather than craft yourself at least minimal imrovement. I partially agree with that, I'd love to craft my own gear too :) However I fear for the trade economy - should everyone craft his own gear who would trade then? But as I said this argument is aiming for centre IMO.

"

mara5a wrote:

"

kruemel2222 wrote:

Well, the very moment you pay an alch, 4 chisels and x chaos just to enter a map 2-4 chaos don't sound so great anymore, do they? On top of that, you will get all kinds of drops, therefore, you have to find someone who is willing to trade them for alchs, chisels and chaos orbs if you intent to chain higher level maps.

not sure why i should pay chaos to enter the maps? I just alch white map and that's it, never really found chisels IIQ bonus appealing.

If you have to ask why people use chaos orbs and chisels on maps you are either the luckiest player ever or a braggart. There's a good guide about map management, you may want to read it to see how expensive proper endgame mapping is: www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/339977/page/1

"

kruemel2222 wrote:

"

mara5a wrote:

"

kruemel2222 wrote:

Well, the very moment you pay an alch, 4 chisels and x chaos just to enter a map 2-4 chaos don't sound so great anymore, do they? On top of that, you will get all kinds of drops, therefore, you have to find someone who is willing to trade them for alchs, chisels and chaos orbs if you intent to chain higher level maps.

not sure why i should pay chaos to enter the maps? I just alch white map and that's it, never really found chisels IIQ bonus appealing.

If you have to ask why people use chaos orbs and chisels on maps you are either the luckiest player ever or a braggart. There's a good guide about map management, you may want to read it to see how expensive proper endgame mapping is: www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/339977/page/1

The problem with the map guide is that a higher quantity on a map doesn't mean you will get more drops if you run with IIQ gear.

Thanks to Necro http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/807858#p7018157

I'm still testing, but so far I've found the map IIQ is added to the over all IIQ of the player. So therefore, IIQ gear depicts how much IIQ upgrading is a feasible.

Just for example:

A player runs maps with let's say...36% IIQ
the player rolls a lvl66-72 map with 6% IIQ
Is this map worth upgrading further? No, because they'd need to get at least 33% on the said map to gain additional returns. The level of the map wouldn't be worth wasting ANY more currency on.

So now let's say the same player rolls a lvl76 map:

the player is using the same gear
the IIQ on the map = 33%
Would they want to reroll for higher IIQ? Probably not, because they'd need a roll of at least 92% before the drop rates actually increased.

I've run lvl76 magic maps with 33%, and rare maps with 67-88% using only 36% IIQ from my IIQ gem (for testing IIQ gem vs IIQ on maps). The only time a rare map made a difference, was when the map had increased pack size.

Even still, the map guide IS very helpful, even though there are a few things I don't agree with. :D

Qarl's clarification kinda answered his own question for him, did it not ? :)

since orbs are both crafting mats and currency, the easy answers are:


1. players hoard mats to gather a pool to craft from, because high-level crafting (6L, ex, et) is only possible in large quantities

2. players hoard currency to get buying power to buy x number of big ticket items and still don't feel broke after.

and the aggregate of these, which simply is 1 and 2 combined. I guess you can add to number 2 hoarding currency makes your epeen feel wealthy.

but answers are quite simple actually

"

raics wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

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.

I still think the lack of third option is the proverbial 'root of all evil' here. If you think about it, the main problem is gear has to tick too many boxes to qualify as an upgrade.
- base item (not just any will do)
- gem slots (even more narrow, but fortunately it can be modified, although it can be tricky)
- mods
The reason crafting is so significant is it enables you to skip one of those, and trading enables you to skip all three. So, the amount of time required to obtain the item with any of those three methods should be comparable for them to be equally valid, but it isn't.

I really don't like the use of the phrase "equally" in there. It implies that all choices should be evened out to such an extent that choice isn't meaningful for someone who's willing to engage in all three.

What I mean is: Starcraft (the first one) is, to me, the epitome of good balance. There are three main options, all of which have significant, impactful, meaningful differences, yet simultaneously are even enough where the choice between them can be difficult, assuming one has no personal bias or previous commitment. This naturally leads to a situation where someone with, say, a strong and irrational anti-Zerg bias can still do rather well... but that's not the design goal per se, just a fortunate side effect.

One more thing about StarCraft: the races may be of relatively equal power when looked at overall, but they are emphatically not equal in any single, isolated component.

This means someone who trades and crafts gambles and farms should often be put into situations where there is one right answer, one "best tool" to do the job, but the three options take turns being that answer, due to the unique properties of each — this is the equivalent of someone who is able to change their race on the fly during a multi-game match to better tailor strategy against an opponent. At the same time, someone who, say, refuses to trade should be at a slight disadvantage due to ruling out a potentially usable option, but the key word there is "slight" — in order for the choice between the three options to be sufficiently challenging, they must at all times be at least somewhat close to each other to make choosing sufficiently difficult.

"

sidtherat wrote:

80/20 rule

ban all jspers from top20 of all ladders. account wipe, full, with all proxy-accounts. make it public

several RMT'ers to be are going to think twice. RMT'ing also costs time and money

and it isnt that hard to 'take days'. any intern with basic db skills and detective habbits can find these. then you need some from core ggg staff to confirm the findings and press the button. you make it sound expensive where it isnt. esp in case of poe rmt'ers that do it basically in the open without ANY fear of retribution

what a garbage suggestion. further example that you are some kind of idealist, who does not live in online realities of today (hell, even 10 years ago)

this kind of draconian law will only alienate legit players, while barely putting a dent in RMT market.

first of all, anyone can make a djsp account. I can make an account in your name right now. then a 'db intern' will ban you. how would you feel about that ? now think, buddy, internet is a vile place. fellow ladders will make dozens of djsp accounts to rise up themselves. this will result in a full-fledged witch hunt. if you think anyone on djsp will allow a 'db intern' or anyone from GGG to have access to their logged ip addresses, lol. and even if they did, in this day and age not using a high anonymity proxy, vpn or tor for your choice of shady internet activity is another lol

second of all, banning 'proxy accounts' is another funny joke. poe accounts are free, and it takes few seconds to get them running. there is no real way to find proxy accounts and ban them, besides banning ANY account that was involved in trading ( and if you ban traders of those traders, it becomes a c^n exponential problem and eventually will encompass everyone, since Im sure all legit players who trade possess some of the RMTed currency at some point).

again, a rmt'er can trade with 10 people, 1 one of which is a 'proxy' account and the rest legit players. by banning the legit players you will alienate the player base even further, because all RMTers will do is...drumroll...make another account. this happened in D2 and D3 with account costing $60, do you really think RMTers will stop when all they have to do is make another dozen of free accounts ? lol

bottom line is, your suggestion is akin to DRM. do you know why DRM was so unpopular ? because it penalized legit players while didnt do anything to piracy. DRM protections had thousands and millions of dollars pumped in by security corps, yet in the end pirates still cracked em like walnuts.
its EXACTLY the same thing with RMT. there is only ONE effective solution that stops RMT in a online-only quasi-competitive game where items have intrinsic value and there is sufficient demand for them.

this solution is *drumroll* NO TRADING AT ALL. not in-party, not between friends, not in public.

any other solution is only a temporary measure. sure, you may catch a dozen of ladder cheats, but you will just alienate the playerbase because you'll ban hundreds of innocent players. and RMT will still persist. people who write bots and automate the rmt process eat 'db interns with detective habits' in their sleep and shit em out before breakfast.

"

mondobogus wrote:

The problem with the map guide is that a higher quantity on a map doesn't mean you will get more drops if you run with IIQ gear.

Thanks to Necro http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/807858#p7018157

I'm still testing, but so far I've found the map IIQ is added to the over all IIQ of the player. So therefore, IIQ gear depicts how much IIQ upgrading is a feasible.

Just for example:

A player runs maps with let's say...36% IIQ
the player rolls a lvl66-72 map with 6% IIQ
Is this map worth upgrading further? No, because they'd need to get at least 33% on the said map to gain additional returns. The level of the map wouldn't be worth wasting ANY more currency on.

So now let's say the same player rolls a lvl76 map:

the player is using the same gear
the IIQ on the map = 33%
Would they want to reroll for higher IIQ? Probably not, because they'd need a roll of at least 92% before the drop rates actually increased.

I've run lvl76 magic maps with 33%, and rare maps with 67-88% using only 36% IIQ from my IIQ gem (for testing IIQ gem vs IIQ on maps). The only time a rare map made a difference, was when the map had increased pack size.

Even still, the map guide IS very helpful, even though there are a few things I don't agree with. :D

people dont use chaos and chisels to up the iiq to get better item drops. they do it to get better MAP drops, which solely come from map quantity rolls. not sure if Im being captain obvious here lol

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I really don't like the use of the phrase "equally" in there. It implies that all choices should be evened out to such an extent that choice isn't meaningful for someone who's willing to engage in all three.

This means someone who trades and crafts gambles and farms should often be put into situations where there is one right answer, one "best tool" to do the job, but the three options take turns being that answer, due to the unique properties of each — this is the equivalent of someone who is able to change their race on the fly during a multi-game match to better tailor strategy against an opponent. At the same time, someone who, say, refuses to trade should be at a slight disadvantage due to ruling out a potentially usable option, but the key word there is "slight" — in order for the choice between the three options to be sufficiently challenging, they must at all times be at least somewhat close to each other to make choosing sufficiently difficult.

I don't really like it either, 'comparable' right next to it suits the situation much better.

Anyway, this is splendid, we basically agree, for maximum enjoyment all three ways of gearing should contribute at least in the same order of magnitude and all three must have their place in the whole process. Of course, a player using all three by any logic gets more than the sum of all parts, and losing that bonus should be penalty enough for those that don't engage in one of them.

And it, sadly isn't the case, this thread is here because trading is vastly dominant, it wouldn't be surprising if trading was responsible for over 3/4 of your char's mid-lategame outfit, or even more. And that just doesn't sit well with a goodly portion of the community.

The main problem is how to change it. As I wrote in previous post, the situation is a direct product of current itemization system and ham-fisted halfmeasures like devaluing currency by increasing drops most likely wouldn't work or might do more harm than good. Even though it looks simple, it's a complex problem and solving it without changing core game systems would require a very light touch, a lot of testing and a crapload of time and effort. Ant that, I just don't think devs are willing to invest at the moment, especially seeing they appear inexplicably happy with the current situation.

"

grepman wrote:

"

sidtherat wrote:

Spoiler

80/20 rule

ban all jspers from top20 of all ladders. account wipe, full, with all proxy-accounts. make it public

several RMT'ers to be are going to think twice. RMT'ing also costs time and money

and it isnt that hard to 'take days'. any intern with basic db skills and detective habbits can find these. then you need some from core ggg staff to confirm the findings and press the button. you make it sound expensive where it isnt. esp in case of poe rmt'ers that do it basically in the open without ANY fear of retribution

what a garbage suggestion.

Spoiler

further example that you are some kind of idealist, who does not live in online realities of today (hell, even 10 years ago)

this kind of draconian law will only alienate legit players, while barely putting a dent in RMT market.

first of all, anyone can make a djsp account. I can make an account in your name right now. then a 'db intern' will ban you. how would you feel about that ? now think, buddy, internet is a vile place. fellow ladders will make dozens of djsp accounts to rise up themselves. this will result in a full-fledged witch hunt. if you think anyone on djsp will allow a 'db intern' or anyone from GGG to have access to their logged ip addresses, lol. and even if they did, in this day and age not using a high anonymity proxy, vpn or tor for your choice of shady internet activity is another lol

second of all, banning 'proxy accounts' is another funny joke. poe accounts are free, and it takes few seconds to get them running. there is no real way to find proxy accounts and ban them, besides banning ANY account that was involved in trading ( and if you ban traders of those traders, it becomes a c^n exponential problem and eventually will encompass everyone, since Im sure all legit players who trade possess some of the RMTed currency at some point).

again, a rmt'er can trade with 10 people, 1 one of which is a 'proxy' account and the rest legit players. by banning the legit players you will alienate the player base even further, because all RMTers will do is...drumroll...make another account. this happened in D2 and D3 with account costing $60, do you really think RMTers will stop when all they have to do is make another dozen of free accounts ? lol

bottom line is, your suggestion is akin to DRM. do you know why DRM was so unpopular ? because it penalized legit players while didnt do anything to piracy. DRM protections had thousands and millions of dollars pumped in by security corps, yet in the end pirates still cracked em like walnuts.
its EXACTLY the same thing with RMT. there is only ONE effective solution that stops RMT in a online-only quasi-competitive game where items have intrinsic value and there is sufficient demand for them.

this solution is *drumroll* NO TRADING AT ALL. not in-party, not between friends, not in public.

any other solution is only a temporary measure. sure, you may catch a dozen of ladder cheats, but you will just alienate the playerbase because you'll ban hundreds of innocent players. and RMT will still persist. people who write bots and automate the rmt process eat 'db interns with detective habits' in their sleep and shit em out before breakfast.

For the most part, I agree with grepman here.

However, I still firmly believe that, in the event a player is banned for RMT practices, all items which the player possessed at any time, regardless of who currently possesses them, should vanish. This would serve two functions:
1. It would be pointless to transfer items from an account which is likely to be banned to a "safe" proxy account, because the items would be deleted anyway.
2. Legit players would be far, far more anti-RMT than they are now, and thus much more prone to report and to collect vital evidence against RMTers than they are given the current incentives.
3. Legit players would be incentivized to form actual social connections with other players, instead of relying heavily upon trades with pseudo-anonymous strangers.

With those benefits comes the cost of several players getting burned due to accidentally trading in illegitimate goods. Worth it, in my opinion.