The Void hungers for X more players.

Okay so when you say 'literally' you mean something closer to 'traditionally'? I mean, that's fine. But the game is not defined by your preferred traditions.

The game is defined by what the game does. The regular, non-HC game mode has permadeath, therefore permadeath is quite specifically not (literally or otherwise) some kind of antithesis to it.

"

jsuslak313 wrote:

That's like saying "noobs" don't exist, simply because the term "noob" doesn't actually exist per se. Or any internetspeak / genre-related terminology.

The term noob does exist though. You just used it.

Similarly, I don't mean that "softcore" as a term, doesn't exist. Obviously it does. I mean that softcore as you use it here - meaning either a formal name or your colloquial "something that permadeath is the antithesis of" - does not exist in Path of Exile.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

The game is defined by what the game does. The regular, non-HC game mode has permadeath, therefore permadeath is quite specifically not (literally or otherwise) some kind of antithesis to it.

It is literal. Like you said here "the game is defined by what the game does". For 10+ years, and GENERATIONS of arpgs before it, alongside it, and after it, there exist two modes of play: non-permadeath and perma-death. Perma-death modes, almost always, have been labeled as hardcore. As such, the term "softcore" was developed to describe non-permadeath modes.

Prior to this void mod, there existed NO OTHER perma-death mods or even ideas in non-HC gameplay. THAT is why this particular addition is an "antithesis". You can't use its current existence to explain away its opposing nature. Because its existence is what is being argued. There is no precedence for it, in PoE or in ANY other game with side-by-side perma vs nonperma death modes.

PoE is no different: in its ENTIRE existence up until this point, there existed two modes: a softcore, non-permadeath mode and a side-by-side permadeath hardcore mode. The ONLY difference between these two was the treatment of death. And they STILL currently exist side by side. There is literaly, and yes I mean LITERALLY, no other difference between these different game modes. There is no reason to even HAVE the "hardcore" version of the game if the base game was NOT designed to be hardcore.

The argument here is that, BECAUSE of the history and meaning and existence of a hardcore mode, the addition of a new permadeath aspect in a non-permadeath game mode IS the antithesis of that mode: it is LITERALLY the opposite of the what that mode was designed for. HC vs normal, HCSSF vs SSF. They are opposing modes, with ONLY permadeath being the difference.

It is not me speaking about this tradition or adding my own meaning to this....it is already there.

"

jsuslak313 wrote:

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

The game is defined by what the game does. The regular, non-HC game mode has permadeath, therefore permadeath is quite specifically not (literally or otherwise) some kind of antithesis to it.

It is literal. Like you said here "the game is defined by what the game does". For 10+ years, and GENERATIONS of arpgs before it, alongside it, and after it, there exist two modes of play: non-permadeath and perma-death.

It's weird to quote my statement as if you're agreeing with it and then immediately go down a path that shows you're not applying it. What I mean is, it was intentional that I said:
"the game is defined by what it does"
rather than
"the game is defined by what it used to do".

Imagine someone has a blue car. One day they paint it red. Some acquaintaince comes up to them and says that the new colour is the antithesis of the old colour, and tells them passionately how prior to this, in the car's ENTIRE existence up to that point, they'd always described it as a blue car. "Okay man, good for you", says the car owner. "Now it's a red car".

Yeah, the game used to be different. Everything is the way it is until it isn't anymore. Whoa.

The terms we use to describe the world are just that: descriptions. They are not the definitions of the world. The world changes and we must update our descriptions of it as we go through our lives (or accept a fade into irrelevance, I suppose).

So yes, people used to call this "softcore". They're welcome to keep doing so (or not, I don't care), but they'll need to update their idea of what "softcore" means to something less "no permadeath" and more "not hardcore". I think most people will manage that just fine.

"

jsuslak313 wrote:

There is no reason to even HAVE the "hardcore" version of the game if the base game was NOT designed to be hardcore.

Now you're just being silly. You're not seriously under the impression that the main game is now equivalent to Hardcore. You know that the main game does not "have permadeath" in the same way that HC does. It has one niche item class that can kill your character, this is not a central or even remotely common game mechanic. They're still hugely different game modes.

"

jsuslak313 wrote:

The argument here is that, BECAUSE of the history and meaning and existence of a hardcore mode, the addition of a new permadeath aspect in a non-permadeath game mode IS the antithesis of that mode: it is LITERALLY the opposite of the what that mode was designed for.

And yet it is managing to exist perfectly fine. It's clearly not important for games to only do things they used to be "designed for".

Your comparison with the car is not a good one.

What's more appropriate, using the same kind of comparison is this: You have a black car, and decide to paint it white. White is still the OPPOSITE of Black, no matter what. Sure the car is white now but that isn't what is being argued. That is where the analogy fails: while we can debate whether or not the car SHOULD be white, this falls way short of whether a non-permadeath game mode SHOULD have perma-death aspects to it, given that one can already opt into a perma-death mode.

Perhaps I might give this analogy: you can choose to buy a black prius or a white prius. They cost the same. One person goes to the dealer and buys the black prius. Another person goes to the same dealer and wants the white, but the dealer then says he CANT buy the white prius and instead needs to buy the black one and spend thousands of dollars to paint it white themselves. Thats a little...detached even for me, but I consider it closer to my argument than your analogy.

Permadeath is the OPPOSITE of non-permadeath: there is no if's, and's, or but's about it. Either you permanently die or you don't, there is no in-between. My POINT was that, introducing a perma-death mechanic in a non-permadeath mode is the OPPOSITE of that mode and shouldn't even be considered. I am aware the entire MODE is not permadeath, nor that it really even has an effect on ME as a non-permadeath player. That doesn't make it any LESS the opposite of what the league should be.

And again, to say...."It is what it is because it exists now" is a total non-starter and completely irrelevant to the argument at hand. You could say the same thing about EVERY SINGLE CHANGE that has ever happened or existed in the game. If that were the case, there would be no reason or allowance for feedback of any kind or even debate of any kind because "It exists now so that's that."

You are right....the CURRENT effect of Valdo is minimal. I am not denying that.

But it sets a dangerous precedent for future developments. I am concerned for the FUTURE of the game. The fact that GGG is allowing something like this to exist, even in its current extremely small iteration, is worrisome. It is FAR better to argue the issue before it becomes pervasive than after it destroys the game...

"

jsuslak313 wrote:

Your comparison with the car is not a good one.

What's more appropriate, using the same kind of comparison is this: You have a black car, and decide to paint it white. White is still the OPPOSITE of Black, no matter what.

Oh dear. That's the same analogy man. I actually had originally written it with white and black, and only swapped it to a different contrasting pair to avoid any odd little associative connotations. You can put any pair of 'opposite' things in that you like, it's the same story, with the same point. At this level of literacy I'm out. I'm not here to convince you of anything.

What a ridiculous argument to make....and I'm surprised you can't see it because you are typically very appropriate in other threads even when we disagree.

Discounting an entire criticism or description, or whatever you want to label it, just because "It exists now, so nothing you say matters" is such a poor argument. I don't need to adjust my definition of what White and Black, Blue and Red are, just because something that was White is now painted black, etc.

Tomorrow, they could tell everyone that the color "blue" is now going to be called "red". In the entire existence of color labeling, the "color" we know blue to be is what we have always perceived as "blue". By your logic, I can't say anything against that because that's what it is now and it is ME that has to adjust my definition without any complaint or argument. Ignoring the historical and all other data and developments we have. Ignoring every other support. Ignoring the existence of something SPECIFICALLY created to be its opposite.


Tomorrow, GGG can remove every single skill gem from the game and leave you with "flame surge" as your only option. I better not hear you complaining or offering any feedback because "That's what the game is"