I know more people that left because PoE is easy.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

@morbo: Investment of time is still an axis of hardcore.

in Russia we call it "ass-hours"

you sit on your ass for X hours and you get something for that
the more you sit, the more you get

why trading is so popular?

because
a) sitting on ass becomes very boring relatively quickly
everything monotonous becomes boring
most effective ways sitting on ass aren't most fun

b) it allows to bypass "grinding" part quite effectively, the very part noone wants to do

because it is like impossible to make "grinding" part fun

once you start calculating XP/hour or rares/hour or Ex/day,
it is by definition is not fun anymore

"

mrpetrov wrote:

Trading as it stands is not an additional "module" that provides a fun diversion or mini-game that is tangential to the core experience. The core experience of PoE revolves around certain elements, of which one is the economy/trading.

P.

Actually the core experiences of PoE, which are levelling, creating the build (gearing up) and looting (endgame farming), can all be much easier achieved with trading than without trading.

There's two means to achieve the core game experiences: trading or H&S ARPGing, and trading is always the better (faster, more efficient) choice.

And that's what pisses me off: a casual shopper will experience more of the game faster, than a dedicated hardcore player that grinds the actual aRPG game every day and knows the game mechanics to the last bit. You cant possibly call the game hardcore, when it allows such discrepancy.

(see the thread about the guy decked in mirrored GG gear, complaining he cant level past 80, because he's dying all the time, lol..)

"

mrpetrov wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Whether or not trading is an integral part of the ARPG experience is utterly irrelevant to whether trading can be hardcore or not. To be honest, I am inclined to agree that it is not strictly integral. However, multiplayer deathmatch is not strictly integral to first-person shooters, either... but you'd have to be a little daft not to include it in your game, because it's a good system to add. In the same way, it doesn't really matter if trading is integral or not, it's simply good, not to mention expected.

Not your best analogy. Including multi-player DM on a FPS has no impact on the "rest of the game". Including trading has a huge impact on the rest/all aspects of PoE by making it the strictly optimal strategy to gear-up.

Trading as it stands is not an additional "module" that provides a fun diversion or mini-game that is tangential to the core experience. The core experience of PoE revolves around certain elements, of which one is the economy/trading.

P.

This is an almost embarassingly naive view on the impact of multiplayer on the core design of FPSes. The weapon design of such games is often centered on the PvP, rather than single-player, experience. This is precisely because the devs of such games assume the player will find such multiplayer engaging. This isn't always the case (which is part of why the first Bioshock was so good in its own way), but this doesn't mean devs should highly segment each compoonent of the game instead of working them into a cohesive whole.

"

morbo wrote:

And that's what pisses me off: a casual shopper will experience more of the game faster, than a dedicated hardcore player that grinds the actual aRPG game every day and knows the game mechanics to the last bit. You cant possibly call the game hardcore, when it allows such discrepancy.

(see the thread about the guy decked in mirrored GG gear, complaining he cant level past 80, because he's dying all the time, lol..)

What do you mean more of the game? You mean they will have more items? Because you can do the entire game in shit gear. That's essentially the point of this thread. The only challenge is upgrading gear that you don't even need because the game is easy, and people want the only remaining challenge even easier than GGG has made it.

I'm guessing that is what you meant with the last line comparing the "rich" guy. He or his tree is bad, he is creating his own wall.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

This is an almost embarassingly naive view on the impact of multiplayer on the core design of FPSes. The weapon design of such games is often centered on the PvP, rather than single-player, experience. This is precisely because the devs of such games assume the player will find such multiplayer engaging. This isn't always the case (which is part of why the first Bioshock was so good in its own way), but this doesn't mean devs should highly segment each compoonent of the game instead of working them into a cohesive whole.

What's embarrassing is your poor metaphor and the response above you gave to Petrov's critique of your metaphor. Petrov knows that multiplayer is very important in FPS's but its still completely different than trading in this game which is NOT an additional mode that does not effect the rest of the game in any way. That's why your metaphor failed so badly, Stick with your argument about keeping games a cohesive whole but don't use an example that fails to convey that argument.

"

iamstryker wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

This is an almost embarassingly naive view on the impact of multiplayer on the core design of FPSes. The weapon design of such games is often centered on the PvP, rather than single-player, experience. This is precisely because the devs of such games assume the player will find such multiplayer engaging. This isn't always the case (which is part of why the first Bioshock was so good in its own way), but this doesn't mean devs should highly segment each compoonent of the game instead of working them into a cohesive whole.

What's embarrassing is your poor metaphor and the response above you gave to Petrov's critique of your metaphor. Petrov knows that multiplayer is very important in FPS's but its still completely different than trading in this game which is NOT an additional mode that does not effect the rest of the game in any way.

Multiplayer in a FPS is usually an additional mode which does effect the single-player experience in numerous ways. A player's weapon options, how those weapons operate, and even things like movement are often designed with a focus on the multiplayer experience. I guarantee you there are multiplayer zealots with high-ranking jobs in game development who are murdering good single-player FPS concepts as we speak, using the "how will this effect multiplayer?" question as their weapon.

In other words, it is a good analogy, regardless of whether you choose to wear rose-colored glasses when you look at how FPSes are made.

The same kinds of choice can be made in terms of trading in an ARPG. Or PvP in ARPGs. Or party play, as opposed to solo. These are all modes which are expected (but not inherent or required) as part of the overall game package for the genre, but which can be played at the exclusion of other modes. Solo self-found is no exception, by the way; it's possible to sacrifice quality-of-life in other modes to that altar as well, alienating the audiences whose interest lies outside a strict solo self-found bubble.

However, I don't think it necessarily has to be the sacrifice of one at the expense of another. I believe it's possible to make design decisions which simultaneously improve two game modes at one — for example, solo self-found and trading. From such a perspective, the one who sacrifices at the altar of Mode X does so needlessly, wastefully. Furthermore, ties of dependency between various modes of a game make it so damage to one has effects on another, and as such sacrificing elements from the farming component of an ARPG often has more negative effects upon trading than the supposed benefit it receives in exchange.

This is why I have a great deal of ambivalence towards the famous quote that "the economy is the most important aspect of the game to us." On the one hand, it does a lot to incite fears that aspects of the game which are the most important to players like you will be sacrificed in favor of aspects of the game which are not important to players like you. On the other hand, it does not require such sacrifice, and if the economy truly the most important aspect of the game to GGG, perhaps the best way they can achieve their goal is to strengthen diversity and balance within the farming aspect of the game, which would in turn ensure a dynamic and engaging trading environment. This latter result would be good for everyone.

The idea that trading and farming are opposites, that a benefit to one is an automatic drawback to the other, is a false dichotomy.

In regards to you, Mr. Stryker, I might be underestimating you here, but I don't believe I can change your mind with reason. You've always struck me as the sort who goes with whatever opinion is the collectively loudest, because it's the collectively loudest. Therefore, as long as "down with trade, up with farming" is the popular QQ in these forums, I don't expect you to diverge from such an opinion. However, I still believe in the ability to reason with others... and, if I can convince enough of them to change the popular opinion, my hypothesis indicates you'd soon follow suit.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

In other words, it is a good analogy, regardless of whether you choose to wear rose-colored glasses when you look at how FPSes are made.

It seriously isn't. If you want to argue that then please list for me how a multiplayer mode like death match alters a single player campaign any where near as much as trading does in Path of Exile. Hell in a FPS devs can easily make a cohesive single player exactly the way that they want it and then tweak the multiplayer to their liking. Players really don't care much if multiplayer has significant differences to singleplayer. Devs have lots of freedom here to do what they want. Trading in Path of exile is much different. It restricts the devs to building the game around it to serve the economy.

"

You've always struck me as the sort who goes with whatever opinion is the collectively loudest, because it's the collectively loudest.

You might want to think about that a little bit. When I joined the game back in closed beta, the first thing about the game that I critiqued was FFA looting. I was loudly shouted down in the forums by the hardcore type who didn't like people talking badly about FFA. I never once cared if I ever felt like a lone voice on that issue(and many times I did). Not really sure what this has to do with my post about your bad metaphor though.

"

Therefore, as long as "down with trade, up with farming" is the popular QQ in these forums, I don't expect you to diverge from such an opinion. However, I still believe in the ability to reason with others... and, if I can convince enough of them to change the popular opinion, my hypothesis indicates you'd soon follow suit.

My opinion is my opinion and I really don't care what other people are saying. If you really read all of my posts you would already know that I don't dislike trading. Trading itself is a great and very beneficial thing. What I don't like is how the farming has turned out in this game because of trading. If the devs can somehow resolve that problem then I wouldn't really care much for a SFL personally.

"

iamstryker wrote:

Trading in Path of exile is much different. It restricts the devs to building the game around it to serve the economy.

This is false. Although I'll admit that, if the devs believe it's true, problems manifest regardless. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy type of thing.

My point is, this isn't a one-or-the-other situation. It does not follow logically that maintaining a pristine economy must make the core gameplay experience worse. If anything, making the core gameplay experience better would have the effect of a better economy.

Here's the catch though: By "making the core gameplay experience better," part of that is in the type of way Worldbreaker is thinking of in the opening post. We're going more for tantric sex than a quickie here. Of course, it doesn't count as tantric if the activity just stops; there needs to be a continuous progression of some sort, even if climax is much-delayed. Tricky to balance.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

This is false.

Its the way that it is in this game whether you like it or not. I haven't seen any decent concrete ideas from you or anyone else on how the devs can keep the economy stable and at the same time give the game a reasonable fun drop rate that isn't made with trading in mind.

"

iamstryker wrote:

I haven't seen any decent concrete ideas from you or anyone else on how the devs can keep the economy stable and at the same time give the game a reasonable fun drop rate that isn't made with trading in mind.

From a pure progression standpoint, they are currently reasonable and fun. Perhaps not perfect, but even if trading is removed from the picture completely (say, some theoretical offline single-player version), delaying completion is important enough to deny increasing drop rates significantly.

You also seem to be under the perverse delusion that the quantity of stuff which drops is of prime importance. It's the quality. A more balanced, diverse, deeper itemization trumps drop spam. Drop rates are not really the issue. If you want to simulate the effect of doubled drop rates on progression, just play twice as much, problem solved.

I generally don't want drop rates increased, because I don't want to get done faster; I want to keep playing. I do, however, want think rates increased. I want to look at more items and go "hmm." This doesn't mean they're upgrades, it just means I might believe they're upgrades. I'd like to be wrong on that more often. I want figuring out what to equip to be more difficult than it currently is.

I imagine that, technically, increasing the diversity of drops (such that where A B and C dropped before, A B C D and E now drop) would also include an increase in drop rate (such that A drops just as often as it did before, despite now being split five ways instead of three). However, I am staunchly against the concept of increasing drop rate to hasten progression, and instead only for increasing it when the increased diversity of the item pool calls for it to be increased.