GGGs reasoning on not making a SFL?

The problem is that if 2-4 is not what SFL will have, it's literally the exact same thing as a player consciously deciding not to trade in the current leagues, with one small change. The only difference is that in random parties you will run into others who are not self found, but I and many others have looked on public parties with disdain for the life of the game.

If you want argue for SFL public parties, that's a little odd to me, but go for it. If you want to argue that being forced into SFL is the real difference, I'd ask you if you lack the bollocks to delete a hardcore character if you have the prerogative. So I'm not really sure what the argument really is for. Personally, I'd be fine with the removal of magic find and buffing of drop rates to compensate, which would theoretically better enable SF anyway.

"

LSN wrote:

p.s: And telling me that it is an assumption, that
1. SFL would have to go with full sc/hc perm/4month leagues,

Yes this is an asssumption/guess. See the definition of the word "fact".

"

2. would have to give better drop rates to account for lesser other oportunities,

I was never referring to this since its kind of what most SFL people are already asking for.

"

3. therefore would bias the choice for new players to rather go with SFL,

Yes this is an assumption/guess. There is no telling what criteria new players would choose the leagues by, some might be swayed by SFL and others wouldn't be. You don't know how many would go to which league and neither do I.

"

4. and therefore again clustering up the playerbase even more than it is now,

Splitting the player base? Well that's kind of a given.

"

And just to tell you this again. These are no assumptions. You guys just don't like to get specific on it. It is a prediction, a forecast.

Call it what you want its still just a guess and not a fact.

"

Xikorut wrote:

The problem is that if 2-4 is not what SFL will have, it's literally the exact same thing as a player consciously deciding not to trade in the current leagues, with one small change. The only difference is that in random parties you will run into others who are not self found, but I and many others have looked on public parties with disdain for the life of the game.

If you want argue for SFL public parties, that's a little odd to me, but go for it. If you want to argue that being forced into SFL is the real difference, I'd ask you if you lack the bollocks to delete a hardcore character if you have the prerogative. So I'm not really sure what the argument really is for. Personally, I'd be fine with the removal of magic find and buffing of drop rates to compensate, which would theoretically better enable SF anyway.

Big polls were made. It has become quite obvious that the very biggest part of SFL supporters in fact want increased droprates. Many ppl have stated this in the respective thread as well. I wonder why you can just lie about this.

And again using common sense and looking into feedback forums explains everything. Many ppl are not satisfied with item progress. Of course these support a SFL as they think it must have improved drop rates to make up for trading. And this in fact makes sense. Because a SFL without improved droprates would barely be the experience that GGG wants to give to its customers.



@styker
As someone said before, your whole argumentation is devoided. You have no arguments. This is why you do what you do.

I would say it is an assumption that GGG would only implement 1 SFL softcore. For what reason would hc and 4 month league players be excluded from the self found experience? Therefore you can take it as a matter of fact.

"Yes this is an assumption/guess. There is no telling what criteria new players would choose the leagues by, some might be swayed by SFL and others wouldn't be. You don't know how many would go to which league and neither do I."

Of course there is. People want item progression and easy satisfaction. Just take a look into feedback forums (what you anyway do). Many ppl will take a SFL with improved loot over a regular league (how many is not even important for my argument, therefore it is a matter of fact and not an assumption).

4 matters of fact as I have proven. No assumptions involved.

"

LSN wrote:

Well here again I explain the obvious:

PoE has consistency within its public leagues. To keep this consistency, it is at least required to go sc/hc when doing a SFL. But then the factor time comes in (what I explained already a dozen of times). In one year from now (much earlier actually) ppl claim SFL has become stale and they want a fresh start. Therefore GGG would only implement a SFL (thats not only for testing) within this existing consistency of leagues, because it makes sense when using common sense. Why would SFL be only for sc players or only for permanent league players at all?

2. GGG wants their game to be a good experience (common sense). A SFL without adjusted droprates would simply not be this (experience in game). Period.

3. - 4. automatically follows (common sense).

I understand your concern. I suggest ggg make a SLF which :

-is SC/HC only. no four month league. no better droprate or whatever
-require 2 month subscription fee. if ,lets say, less than 1000 people pay the subscription fee, the league will be removed.

at least this way they can cover some cost.

"

iamstryker wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Your response is devoid of content because you cannot provide a rational argument which contradicts my point.

Your point is so blatantly silly I don't really feel the need to argue against it, but oh well here we go. It doesn't matter how many people trade or flip or whatever. If flipping is inherently more powerful than playing the game then the SFL argument stands.

That is precisely what it is not: it is not inherently more powerful.

inherent adj existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute

You can lose value trading. From a market-value perspective, it happens just as often, and to the exact same degree, as gaining value trading. Many traders never make a profitable trade in terms of gaining wealth. Most traders trade a net loss, feeding the few who make great profits. A series of profitable trades does not guarantee future success. Gaining wealth from trading is not a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute of trading. It is a possibility, not a guarantee. It is the exact opposite of inherent.

Gaining utility (usually at the cost of wealth) is an essential and characteristic attribute of interaccount trading; however, this is also true of intraaccount item transfers.

I start to believe that Blizzard infiltrated PoE during closed beta status with a few supporter guys who are now receiving orders to create riot amongst users in order to damage the game and company while claiming PoE to become something, that D3 is and got because of the lacking abilities and efforts of Blizzard to make a legitimate game with trading being involved, what PoE in fact is (which can be further improved).

"

LSN wrote:

I start to believe that Blizzard infiltrated PoE during closed beta status with a few supporter guys who are now receiving orders to create riot amongst users in order to damage the game and company while claiming PoE to become something, that D3 is and got because of the lacking abilities and efforts of Blizzard to make a legitimate game with trading being involved, what PoE in fact is (which can be further improved).

That extremely long sentence began intelligible but drifted off into incoherence.

Let me tell you, that I didn't mean you with closed beta supporters. Or do you see a closed beta supproter sign next to your name? lol


ahh I should have opened up all the hidden spoilers. Well GG I am out of here before I get banned from competent mods because I am not politically correct.

Dammit Scrotie, you use a gif from Futurama but don't use a tinfoil hat from the show. I am very disappointed. But yeah, that paragraph long sentence got a little... Well, it sounds like something I would write at 5 AM.

"

Xikorut wrote:

Dammit Scrotie, you use a gif from Futurama but don't you a tinfoil hat from the show. I am very disappointed.

Damn QQers, forcing content creators to abandon their initial artistic visions to appeal to the masses.