Love playing PoE? Tired of trading or RMT - or do you enjoy either? Vote here!
|
The good news is that we now have some evidence that actually far more players would like to see GGG test a SFL than people who would not like GGG to test it.
In that, we can summarily reject arguments that the SFL test movement is a 'niche' of players. I welcome any compelling evidence to the contrary. However, of course the ultimate decision lies with Chris. I am probably clutching at straws, but note that Chris did not shut the door (nor open it) on a SFL in his latest manifesto posts. Petrov. |
|
|
@mrpetrov
How would you implement a SFL? Softcore permanent? Softcore 4 month that can become permanent? What would you tell the hc guys who wanted to play SF too? Will this at the end lead into doubling leagues to make it right for everyone? Noone was able to give an honest answer to this yet. Last edited by LSN#3878 on Apr 21, 2014, 11:28:06 AM
| |
" For me 2 permanent SF leagues are more than enough. It is not like I see you explaining Standard players Ambush existence... This 4-month leagues are nice, but you can easily push content to everyone _without_ starting new ladder. And people who like fresh start are free to start over. Right now, 4-month are beta testers. It doesn't need to be so in theory. " To prevent complaints (ha-ha), everything should be the same. I fully support common baseline. " That's funny argument, I wouldn't made it myself. | |
" What are you even talking about? Ambush is a softcore league. hardcore leagues do not get more drops. " Since when is trading=socializing in this game? A SFL can be done WITH partying enabled which is the vast majority of socializing. Again you stick with the idea that SFL people want an easier game. A SFL would be more difficult even with buffed drop rates so this has nothing to do with wanting more stuff. Trading is the easiest way to play. If you want to make fun of playing easy then make fun of your own league. Standard Forever Last edited by iamstryker#5952 on Apr 21, 2014, 11:33:27 AM
|
|
" 4 month leagues get their justification from them being implemented into permanent later on, which a SFL would be not. And besides of this the challenge of a fresh start in a fresh economy for everyone. These arguments would exactly support 4 month SF leagues as well. Because there is no trading, SFLs would become boring as hell after a few months and people would want the option for a fresh start in a 4 months SFL then. Especially those who made a break or are new to the game then in 4 months and want equal circumstances for everyone and don't feel like playing in a well established SFL where all the no-lifers have GG gear already while they don't (regonize the similarity to the now state argumentation?). The clear strategy of SFL proponents therefore is to bait GGG with them only wanting a single (or 2 leagues) and then later on arguing on the base that there are no valid points against 4 month SF leagues anymore. Very clear at this point. Last edited by LSN#3878 on Apr 21, 2014, 11:39:19 AM
| |
" Being detrimental to the game is just your imagination/opinion and not a fact as you like to parade around this thread. I'm not going to continue arguing with you though since your resorting to insults which the mods should be taking care of right now. Standard Forever
|
|
" Yet you cannot accept that the hard facts stand against a SFL (and nor you have invalidated any of the many there are) and therefore you move your points to the secondary theatre of war. Quite weak actually. I am not here to be politically correct and delude ppl that you obviously are. Last edited by LSN#3878 on Apr 21, 2014, 11:43:43 AM
| |
" I view Antisocial Introvert League more as a league for retired players who want to quit fast paced 4-month trading leagues and play their own game. These players do not want frest start because they are still chancing Voltaxic to try new build or something like that. ~50:50 distribution between perma-SC and 4-month-SC tells that there are more than enough players who couldn't care less about 4-month leagues. 2 leagues are a compromise between 0 and 8. | |
" LSN, legitimate questions. Firstly, I wouldn't suggest my ideas on implementation are worth anything - GGG are the experts so I would happily leave implementation to them (but reserve the right to disagree!). Sorry for the non-answer, but I don't want to derail the core concept which - for me - is to *test* a SFL. Details are important, but we will never get everyone to agree on the details, which is why I believe those should be left to GGG in their entirety. On the point of splitting leagues, of course that is something to consider. My hypothesis is that creating a SFL will split leagues, but it will also premote new and renewed demand for PoE. Whether that new demand is enough to balance a natural splitting of leagues, I don't have any sensible basis to say one way or the other. What I do feel confident saying, however, is that not doing a SFL because it might be "too popular" and cause standard (and other trading leagues) to become a ghost town is *not* a good reason not to test a SFL. Otherwise we'd all still be communicating by carrier pigeon (it works!). P. |
|
" You don't factor in time. What will you tell SFL proponents in 8 months who desire a new 4 month SFL then? Will you tell "we promised 8 months ago that we wont demand this ..."? If you review your point like this it becomes quite ridiculous. Having SF leagues already now means to have double as many leagues as now in the long term with no doubt (this is what I mean when I say you guys are deluding). Last edited by LSN#3878 on Apr 21, 2014, 11:54:11 AM
|
