The Self Found League

"

emtwo wrote:

Perhaps if you could explain why you are so dissatisfied with Permanent Allocation, we could have a better understanding of your grievance with this suggestion. My personal thoughts are that Short Allocation really benefited a few people based on their build, internet connection, GPU power or some combination of all three. Permanent Allocation improved the loot system for more than half the playere. I'd like to understand why you find this to be so onerous.

Simply put, an element of the game is gone forever.

I'm not a hyperninja; I wasn't going around grabbing people's currency or uniques the split-second they become available. However, I routinely grabbed items which other players might not; I fondly remember back before they changed the Chaos Orb formula how I'd be grabbing junk rares for stashing. And sometimes someone would actively do something to piss me off, and I'd snipe their stuff in return. The point is that I wasn't an "always ninja" person, it was something I did sometimes but not exclusively and never when I felt it would hurt other players I didn't begrudge.

I noticed that I wasn't the only player who played this way. Actually, most played somewhat like me; the white knights and the scumbag snipers were noticeable, but both minorities of the population.

Now white knights really weren't all that bothersome, you might get cussed out, who cares. But I'll admit that the scumbags were a problem, and that a solution was required. So when people QQ'd about it, I normally sided with them somewhat, and had (an unspoken) faith that GGG would find an appropriate answer.

Instead, my playstyle is now utterly destroyed. Your choices: you can play Permanent Allocation, which is zero-ninja white-knight heaven, or you can play the "loot options" version of Short Allocation, which is pure scumbag snipers. There is no middle ground anymore, because the entire middle ground is now playing Permanent Allocation.

This isn't the only way they could have solved the issue. The problem was no repercussions for the scumbags; the solution could have been either allowing PvP (kill the thief) or better yet some kind of tracking/confirmation system so that you'd know how "ninja" a player is before a party leader accepts them into the party by giving them a score on their previous behavior (sort of a loot options with infinite options, rather than three narrow categories, with the ability to waive restrictions).

So I posted this suggestion and debated at length against the current loot options system in the Looting thread, but I was heavily outnumbered. Any talk of doing away with loot options at this point is seen as heresy: after all, it solved the ninja problem, how can it be bad? Not only do amputation suggestions destroy playstyles, they're often extremely effective from the point of view of polarized extremes, and if you haven't noticed polarized extremes are the most popular forum mentalities. Once the middle ground is destroyed, it's very hard finding a common consensus anymore.

This entire story has Self-Found League parallels; the main difference is that the Self-Found League is currently merely an idea. I definitely agree there are problems with the trading system, and I definitely agree that something needs to be done; I'm with you guys that far. What I don't want to see happen is the middle ground destroyed. If the two options are forced self-found with increased drop rates, or trading among hardcore traders, that eliminates the sometimes-trader, the guy who actually splits himself between good old-fashioned self-found farming and trade-based schemes. To make things worse, I believe your suggestion, if enacted, would actually be widely used, just like Permanent Allocation, and about 80% of the playerbase would switch over. But gone forever would be the days of trading exclusively for that one drop-only skill gem, or getting a cheap unique for, well, cheap. Those aren't bad things, people! Let's look for a solution which makes trading less of a requirement for playing the game, without eliminating it completely.

Scrotie, if I understand you correctly, your grievance with loot options sounds akin to the "if we restrict guns, only the bad guys will have guns" argument that is currently circulating in American politics. By allowing people to restrict ninja-ing with Permanent Allocation, we have created an environment where now only ninjas play Short Allocation. Is this an accurate representation of your point?

If we put aside the question of whether said argument is valid, we're still left with the question of what Short Allocation ever provided in terms of adding to the experience in the first place. There were moments where I've picked up orbs or rares that were allocated to other players and those can seem fun, but for myself (and, I suspect, most players) the fun from occasionally getting someone else's loot was far overshadowed by the frustration of occasionally not getting your own loot.

Furthermore, I believe that the very existance of a Short Allocation system, regardless of what time intervals you use or how it's implemented, discourages teamwork. In every public group, there was at least one person who would run off on there own just to stay ahead and give themselves time to ninja other peoples' loot before they caught up. In Permanent Allocation, the difference is staggering and people almost always stick together.

I think GGG made the right move with that choice. A few ninjas loved Short Allocation, a few people like yourself could go either way, but most people clearly felt it was way too problematic.

A question for you: do you still actively play D3? If not, why not? My guess is that you held the same opinion as myself and many others, which is that the fundamental elements of the game were so tragically fucked up that it seems nearly unthinkable that the game could ever, ever be salvaged. If that's the case for you, what then happens to your argument that we shouldn't just throw D3 out the window but we should instead stick it out and work together to fix it?

For many people, the orb/currency/drop rate/trading issues that plague the PoE are so inherently fucked up that a sufficient solution seems highly improbable at best, impossible at worst. Yes, the economy is that bad. So just like a lot of people simply abandoned D3, a lot of us would simply like to abandon the economy in PoE. It will still be there, just like D3 is still there for those who enjoy it, but if the Standard population plummets because people have a better Self-Found option, you only have the developers to blame for the economic failure, not the players who just want to get away from it.

"

emtwo wrote:

Scrotie, if I understand you correctly, your grievance with loot options sounds akin to the "if we restrict guns, only the bad guys will have guns" argument that is currently circulating in American politics. By allowing people to restrict ninja-ing with Permanent Allocation, we have created an environment where now only ninjas play Short Allocation. Is this an accurate representation of your point?

No, because in real life the restricted-gun and unrestricted-gun populations collide and intermingle, plus there's police. It's really a gaming-specific problem, because only in games can you truly enforce a false dichotomy, ironically making it a real one.

An outright ban on firearms wouldn't be the end of American gun ownership any more than prohibition was the end of alcohol or the War on Drugs the end of recreational marijuana. Yes, some criminal enterprises would be strengthened, but many consumers would still be relatively normal people.

A better analogy for this situation would be direct attacks on the legal right to defend yourself against lethal force (to include with a blade or your fists). I imagine some versions of gun criminalization might include this, but it's not necessarily the case.

"

emtwo wrote:

If we put aside the question of whether said argument is valid, we're still left with the question of what Short Allocation ever provided in terms of adding to the experience in the first place. There were moments where I've picked up orbs or rares that were allocated to other players and those can seem fun, but for myself (and, I suspect, most players) the fun from occasionally getting someone else's loot was far overshadowed by the frustration of occasionally not getting your own loot.

Furthermore, I believe that the very existance of a Short Allocation system, regardless of what time intervals you use or how it's implemented, discourages teamwork. In every public group, there was at least one person who would run off on there own just to stay ahead and give themselves time to ninja other peoples' loot before they caught up. In Permanent Allocation, the difference is staggering and people almost always stick together.

In SA, the antisocial guy ran ahead, killed mobs on his own, and took all the loot for himself. But he's killing all the mobs on his own; thus all the reward is deserved. He didn't ninja anything from anyone. He is morally okay.

In PA, the antisocial guy lags behind, doesn't kill anything... and takes his share of the loot all for himself. That makes him truly a mooch, in every conceivable way.

So when you think about it, SA had much tougher mooch requirements, with more possibility of reward. To really mooch you had to be near the other players' fighting and win a click-war with them, and if you're very good at click-wars you could mooch a lot; in PA it's automatic on both fronts, the skill and social elements of mooching are removed.

"

emtwo wrote:

A question for you: do you still actively play D3? If not, why not? My guess is that you held the same opinion as myself and many others, which is that the fundamental elements of the game were so tragically fucked up that it seems nearly unthinkable that the game could ever, ever be salvaged. If that's the case for you, what then happens to your argument that we shouldn't just throw D3 out the window but we should instead stick it out and work together to fix it?

There's a major in "unthinkable" here. Could GGG fix the loot and/or trading systems (even with their promise of "no more server wipes")? Yes, although the no wipes thing is a problem. Could Blizzard fix the damage caused by the Auction Houses without changing anything that honest customers spent real money on? I don't think so. So I still have faith in PoE.

But you bring up a valid point; it is possible to make changes from which their is no return, changes which could cause me to abandon PoE forever. This hasn't happened yet, but it is possible.

"

emtwo wrote:

For many people, the orb/currency/drop rate/trading issues that plague the PoE are so inherently fucked up that a sufficient solution seems highly improbable at best, impossible at worst. Yes, the economy is that bad. So just like a lot of people simply abandoned D3, a lot of us would simply like to abandon the economy in PoE.

The economy in this game is orders of magnitude more healthy than Diablo 3. It's having problems, but seriously one hundred times better. Perhaps you should go back to D3 and remind yourself how bad it could be.

But yes, I agree the economy has severe problems. But let's get real about this. You're not talking about fixing it; you're talking about throwing it away. Feature elimination. How you could be willing to kill the patient so early, without trying any experimental treatments, is beyond me. I mean, I'm thinking something like "make orbs untradeable" is required, so we can agree on the drastic measures thing, but you don't just amputate so early. I guess the only way in which I'd be okay with the Self-Found League is as a worst-case scenario, in case the experiments we perform on the economy fuck it up so severely that a mercy killing is the right call.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

But yes, I agree the economy has severe problems. But let's get real about this. You're not talking about fixing it; you're talking about throwing it away. Feature elimination. How you could be willing to kill the patient so early,

Must be just me but I fail to see how adding an option to play without the economy is removing it from the game totally. Also I think you are forgetting that the game is already dead to quite a few people due to the economy and enforced trading. Is it that you are worried that the trading league will become empty, if this did happen, surely it would just show that the majority prefer not having to deal with the economy.

I've followed, played and supported PoE since the start of 2011 and I no longer play or support this because of the economy/trading simulator. It's not even installed on my pc anymore. Some form of self found would bring me back playing and financially supporting again.

The decent races looked interesting, but lack of length and I'm not a fan of racing stopped me playing them.

I think GGG should run a 4 month league of self found, with everything destroyed at the end to save damaging the economy in default and actually see how many people would play it and what effect it has on default. Otherwise everyone here can post for ages about how it would/would not improve/destroy the game, but it's all just differing personal opinion without any real trial.

"

Vakirauta wrote:

Why haven't a single dev answered this thread yet? What are you guys waiting for?

This baffles the hell out of me as well.

TLDR.

But seriously, self-found league is probably going to happen, but what's more important is when it will happen. My guess is GGG would be better off waiting until their fanbase is larger before they split it by adding another league. They are testing with the two new leagues currently in progress. If these go well, I bet we will see a "Self-Found" league soon thereafter.

In the meantime...carry on!

"

Brigs wrote:

TLDR.

But seriously, self-found league is probably going to happen, but what's more important is when it will happen. My guess is GGG would be better off waiting until their fanbase is larger before they split it by adding another league. They are testing with the two new leagues currently in progress. If these go well, I bet we will see a "Self-Found" league soon thereafter.

In the meantime...carry on!

I totally agree with this.

There have been many interesting league ideas including this. But GGG cannot dump them all in at once, players are going to get scattered around. Right now, we have 4 leagues and that's enough for the time being. 2 of them will eventually end, so that will open up room for new leagues such as one suggested here.

Noticed I have not voted in this thread yet.

Yes please GGG, self found league.
IRONMAN
I've almost always played ironman in every ARPG I've played, but lately I've broken down and traded some items with other players.
If this ironman league was created I would Immediately leave the other leagues and only play in ironman.

Right now there is 1. Standard with child league--running anarchy race. 2. Hardcore with child league--running onslaught race. 3. ???? IRONMAN please Chris.

I cannot find the words to say how much I would like an ironman league.
Self choosing to play ironman in a league where you can trade makes it hard to compare to the players who do trade and just too tempting to buy that really nice item from this player...

Also, if the devs really want to see the socialization and players working together and forming parties with each other, that is intended by the dev. You would see a really awesome player base community in the ironman league. No greedy players trying to squeeze more currency out of another player. No trades. It's beautiful, players helping each other out to clear content and pass bosses using sometimes very basic gear without godly stat rolls. High quality players, most of the players in the league would be very skilled players. Any party you joined you wouldn't have to worry about it being a bad party.
And, a very "pure" league, RMT bots would be pointless.

YES YES YES
I vote for creating a new Ironman league please.
+1

"

emtwo wrote:

It's funny because Scrotie's actually a pretty intelligent guy. The problem is that he doesn't have an open mind, forms instantaneous knee-jerk reactions to things he doesn't like, and only then uses his intelligence in constant back-pedalling justifications for his poorly thought-out opinions.

In short, I don't think he really believes what he says and probably doesn't even really know what he believes, but he feels compelled to form an opinion regardless. He would make a damned good Republican political candidate.

I think that's an unfair and inaccurate assessment of Scrotie's participation here. Yes, he clearly disagrees vehemently with us. He is also making some broad assumptions but no more so than the rest of us in this thread. We just happen to be making opposite assumptions for the most part. Without my crystal ball, I can't be sure which side is closer to the eventual truth that would be realized with SFL.

The way I see it, we and Scrotie disagree primarily on one detail, the number of people who would abandon trading leagues for a no trade league with drop rates improved to a degree.

We make the assumption that those who play the trading game now would continue to do so, he makes the assumption that all but the uber hardcore tycoons would not. As a general rule we are no more swayed by his arguments based around his assumptions than he is by our arguments based around our own assumptions.

In the end, Scrotie is guilty of nothing in this thread that the rest of us aren't equally guilty of. That said, the man does seem to be quite intelligent and clearly doesn't need me to defend him, but let's at least be fair minded in our disagreement here, shall we?

All that said, I'm still not convinced the situation would be as dire as he predicts, but as is usually the case with Scrotie, he does offer food for thought. I'll freely admit that when I take a step back and look at my support of this suggestion as objectively as I can, I am supporting it from the perspective of finding what I want from the game with the overall health of other leagues as a secondary consideration. I also admit that I had not given much thought to the whole "path of least resistance" aspect of what other players might do if GGG committed to a self found league. He may be more right than we'd like to admit given that particular consideration.

Thank you, Thaelyn; I needed that .To be honest I was having trouble defending myself; I managed to lose my temper and, unable to answer objectively over the course of a draft or two, gave up on replying. It's genuinely a pleasure to see someone on the other side of the debate at least considering the risks involved; the only way it would be possible to do something similar to what is suggested here without ruining the game is to be mindful of those risks and implement proper countermeasures (on which I have no bright ideas of my own).

I wonder if anyone wants it to be where one has to trade to progress (in a reasonable amount of time).

But giving up the ability to trade is quite an extreme way of removing the obligation to trade.