@Shaggy even in the old system you'd have to "find" your own items to be able to transmogrify them (no trading). I'm pretty sure we knew that before knowing anything about this soulbound feature. Just a friendly fyi
Oh, I know that.
I'm just saying that if you REAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALY want the look of <item X> you could trade something for an unidentified <item X> and get it.
This system? You don't find it, you're fucked. And that seems massively severe for cosmetic changes. Afterall the transmog system works on the Pokemon "gotta collect them all" philosophy. That is mostly divergent with the BoA "probably won't collect them all" philosophy.
They are going from AH economy to no economy in one fell swoop. Sounds like a plan.
This is the general sentiment at incgamers. It's nice to know there ARE people out there who dislike this one-extreme-to-another approach. The AH was bad.... so we have to do 100% the opposite and not understand WHY the AH was bad.
Lack of understanding the "why" of a problem tends to lead to bad solutions. And here we stand!
We can argue about the BoA rule, and pretty much everyone agreed that making all legendaries BoA was an overreaction. But let's not draw the wrong conclusion that this change makes clans useless - that's just plain ridiculous.
Agreed! It doesn't make clans useless. They're still a way for players to find that "4-player co-op group" in which to share their "bind to game" items! They're still a private chat channel. They still have a use, for sure, but it's definitely diminished. Most of us assumed that clans would be the way to facilitate trading without doing anything fancy. Only the most fervent traders would find a need to go outside of friends and clans to trade. The rest of us would have almost certainly been satiated just to exchange items, arbitrarily, within our "circle" so to speak.
I think that's why you get this whole WTF?????????? reaction. Clans seemed like a natural solution (a friends list with global chat!) to allow people to trade with the others they gamed frequently with.... without facilitating any kind of large-scale trading. Maybe some of us were reading the tea leaves a bit too much.... but it sure seemed like they'd go hand-in-hand for a really cool experience.
Also, Transmogrify will require that you find said Legendary. In that context, "hunting" an item might become quite a "chore" if you don't find it after 50-60 hours.
Transmog is just another reason this "bind to game" system sucks.
Want to change item appearance? Stuck with RNG. So a system that's supposed to be based around "collect them all" is gimped severely because trading ruined some peoples eFun.
But, hey, finding your own items is so fun that it doesn't matter how much other shit we ruin! When you see the orange lightshaft you'll cream your pants so much because you found it! That is if you haven't ragequit because the rest of the game has become so boring and frustrating because the only social aspects left in it are chat. And chat will soon be removed because it's another way that people can figure out that others have better gear than they do and all such things that give that kind of information MUST be removed to preserve the sanctity of the orange lightshaft!
I feel like you're train of thought is kind of stuck on the fact that there will only be maybe 1 or 2 items per slot that will be any good for your character. I think the idea is that each class will have 10-15 legendaries per slot that will be viable.
I understand that, but the fact that we have "build-defining" items means that if you don't find X, Y, or Z, you're not just locked out of not having access to the item, but potentially the build it supports. I *do not* like that thought. If it were as simple as "I didn't find <item1> but I can replace it with <item2> or <item3>" then we're talking a majorly different story, but that's not what "build-defining" means to me. If items are that generic, then they're not going to define builds. They're going to be much closer to what we have now.
At the end of the day, though, it is demoralizing and NOT FUN to go the entire duration of an expansion cycle without having found an item and know you have no way to rectify that. Right now, even though I've not found a Mempo, if it truly means enough to me, I can go to the AH and fix that. I can assess my situation and make a decision based on pros and cons. I have SOME degree of control over my enjoyment of the game. Throwing everything to RNG is a really bad idea. This is why they have systems like smart drops and the mystic... but both of those are still based in RNG, so it doesn't feel like the appropriate escape.
Trading, however, has always provided that safety net. You don't find an item, but your heart is set on it, you can give up some of the other stuff you've amassed and attempt to get that item. This ability to assess a situation, choose from multiple options, it's the essence of life.
"Go grind harder" is just a cop-out answer for a system that's broken.
Good idea for a way to incentivize ladder without going the "exclusive items" route. And I agree that in a world without trading, some control like that is exactly what the game requires. I still fall back on the hyperbolic argument just to make a point:
*** "you" does not refer to Zero henceforth ***
What if the only legendary you found for your entire time in D3 was Firewalkers? Would you still argue that no trading is a good thing? Would you still tell others that they're acting "entitled" because they want to feel they have a shot to get what they want to make their character the way they want? Of course not. Everyone would agree that if you only ever got Firewalkers you have been the victim of some absolutely terrible RNG bad luck. So the question is... where is that invisible line in the sand between "terrible luck, needs fixing" and "suck it up nancy-boy?"
I spent years in D2 and I never got a PERFECT Vamp Gaze. But I did get several perfectly-servicable Vamp Gazes. However, I also never got *any* Windforce, even the shittiest of shitty Windforces. The first scenario made me feel like, even though I had attained good items, I still had something to strive for (the perfect... or near-perfect... Vamp Gaze). The second scenario made me felt beat-down by RNG.
There has to be a better system than saying "well if you feel like you deserve a Windforce then you're entitled." No, I'm not entitled. I'm just a gamer who is interested in a decent shot at character progression in a game dominated by randomized drops. This isn't WoW where I know if I kill Illidan there's a 1% chance he drops a Warglaive. There aren't set-in-stone loot tables like that.
That means I can choose to play for hundreds of hours and achieve some sort of results, and then hundreds of hours later, a website will remind me that my effort was in retrospect worth about 10 bucks and I am going to scratch my head really hard. How can you not understand how this devalues the time you spend in the game? It has nothing to do with whether other people buy or don't buy items.
So long as accounts can be sold this is the case. So, given that Blizzard hasn't made it impossible to buy accounts.... you probably should save yourself the heartache of finding out your "effort" is only "worth 10 bucks" and quit while you're ahead.
Why is everyone entitled to the entirety of the loot?
Because the basic idea of an RNG-based loot system is that everyone has a shot? By definition we are ALL entitled to feel like any particular item is within reach. Part of "feeling like any particular item is within reach" demands that, in case of bad luck, we have some kind of recourse. That's what Gheed was, that's what Haedrig was supposed to be, that's what crafting in PoE is. Even though these systems are all based in RNG, they give you the "ok you picked up 40 yellows so now you can make one more new one of your choosing" level of control that makes it feel not quite as bad. They provide recourse against being subject to pure RNG. That's exactly what trading does.
18 months into D3 I've still yet to find ANY Mempo. By the time I find one it won't be remotely relevant. So, yes, i think people should have a REASONABLE shot to find quality items before they become irrelevant and if that means I have to trade 12 Lacuni Prowlers (because that's how RNG has treated me) for one Mempo of Twilight, so be it. I fail to see how that undermines the legitemacy of drops or how it alters anyone's overall enjoyment of the game. But don't be so crass or naive to try to lecture me about how it's good for the game that people have gone 18, or more, months without finding a Mempo. That's the kind of bad luck that makes people give up, not the kind of thing that adds long-term incentives to the game.
Imagine that your luck is so bad that the hand you're dealt is only Firewalkers. You never find any other set/legendary item. Ever. It's completely unlikely that that would happen, but what would your opinion be? Would you still be spouting off about people feeling entitled, or would you be on the forums raging that other people are getting sweet items and you're only ever dropping Firewalkers? My bet is that you'd feel slighted by RNG, but here you are calling people "entitled" for wanting ways to minimize the bad effects that RNG can have.
Once again, the premise is that /really/ powerful legendaries are going to be extremely rare, says Blizzard. It would be like getting 6 items equivalent to Gladiator's Gauntlets just so that you get to see that orange drop once in a while. You don't get Mempos every game, do you? The difference is that they want to make even low-end legendaries kind of interesting because they can support some kind of obscure builds even if their stats are not so good.
I don't get how you don't understand that EXTREMELY RARE and NO TRADING don't mix. All that does is create a massive "luck gap" and frustration for people on the wrong side of that chasm.
So instead of AH barons... we have people who got insanely lucky with an "extremely rare" legendary that actually matched their class/spec? How in the world does that sound better? At least the AH stuff was in our control - if you wanted to make a lot of money you could. Relegating power purely to RNG is basically the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Now, Blizzard may have systems that help players "beat" RNG, but they never should have dropped this bomb without giving us information on the other things that keep it in context.
The part where you base of your absurd assumptions on the console version which uses 95% old itemization, combat mechanics and some kind of increased drop rates is very funny too.
Errr Blizzard has said multiple times that Loot 2.0 was kinda given a "test ride" on the console. That makes it a bit more than an "absurd assumption."
Don't forget, you'll still have the ability to trade rares/ blues which will have abilities like +%damage to certain skills. Therefore a market will be created around them and ensure that those who enjoy trading can and will be able to. Some legendaries would work best with several rares complementing them through some damage modifiers.
I'm pretty sure there was a slide at Blizzcon that said that orange/green items were "endgame" gear. That implies that blue/yellow items are not "endgame" gear. I'm not sure what "market" will evolve around items that are inferior-by-design, but I doubt it's one that will have any serious participation.
For me the absolute ideal solution is to be able to freely trade with anyone on my friends list and in my clan provided they've been there for 7+ days.
Pros:
No timestamps means I can give any item to anyone that otherwise qualifies - none of the "sorry, you weren't my friend when this dropped" shit.
A delay (in this case, 7 days) would prevent people from dropping/adding friends/clans just to trade. If it's lengthy enough, you'd be BETTER OFF just sticking with your existing friends/clan than trying to find that new friend who has your item. We know this to be at least somewhat true because buyouts on the AH were, in many cases, more popular than bids. People want their shit NOW, not seven days from now!
Reduces "mass" trading without infringing on trading among friends who choose to do so.
Does not force people into playing four-player games to expose themselves to more drops.
No ridiculous two-hour window to come to an agreement and execute a trade.
Cons:
The delay (in this case, 7 days) does feel quite artifical and means that you cannot trade with a LEGITEMATE friend immediately.
Still benefits people who have more friends as compared to those who have fewer friends.
In regard to trading, I'll keep saying it...a free trade system may undermine the "killing monsters for one's own loot" scenario by a little ways, but it's still eons better, and more legit and respectable than fast tracking to Inferno MP10 in a couple hours by flipping two rares for a few hundred million gold and gearing to the teeth.
<snip>
I personally believe that limits on trading, that would effectively kill 3rd party sites, cheapen other games that allow 3rd party sites to continue operating, and cause D3 players to engage and help each other acquire loot together, as opposed to just handing each other stuff, could be a very healthy proposal as well...however, even if they decide against that, and they don't make all legendaries BOA, free trading of most items would still be wildly better than the AH has been at any time since launch.
Right, and this is the problem that the people arguing against this "bind to game" system have.
Instead of taking the time to actually evaluate what no AHs + Loot 2.0 + other related shit in RoS does for the subject, they listened to some whackaloons on the forums and went directly to the "nuclear option."
In the course of what could amount to as little as a few days, we might be going from AHs to next-to-no-trading whatsoever. No middle-ground, no CREATIVE solutions that don't alienate players, nothing. Just full on nuke the fuck out of the ability to exchange items.
Instead of trying to find the "right" solution, all they've done is given us the complete opposite of what we had at launch. How anyone can think that's better is simply beyond me. It defies all logic. This whole over-reactionary approach to design really has to stop. Give the game time to "breathe" without the AHs and with Loot 2.0. See what happens when millions of people are playing THAT game before tying the noose and pulling the lever.
I don't NEED to trade with total strangers, I'll concede that. But I do NEED to trade outside of my immediate game and that concession must be made by the "people who trade are not playing legitly" crowd.
@shaggy: I don't think precedence really matters here. Diablo 2 and Path of Exile have done a lot of things Bilzzard hasn't done, they're entirely different games with different philosophies driving them, such as focusing on character re-rolling, obviously D3 doesn't support that mechanic, which I think is how we've arrived at this BoA issue.
It does matter because the general argument is "finding your own gear is the only legit way to play and trading cheapens that experience."
If that were anywhere close to true that would mean that every other ARPG of any significance should have been a failure because the ability to trade items would cut severely into the enjoyment people had. But we know that's untrue. We know that is demonstrably false based on history. We know that trading doesn't ruin the game the way some of you folks are saying it does.
What we know is that this whole "if other people trade it ruins my enjoyment of drops" argument is completely overblown and basically fabricated contrary to fact. In fact, PoE players have made a stink that chat spam and forum trading is too cumbersome and have asked GGG for some method to facilitate trading. It seems that the only people who aren't thinking about this progressively (but instead regressively) are D3 players, who seem to be advocating for a nanny-state of social engineering where we're all forced to play the game exactly the same.
What about the fact that, under this system, unless you're playing in a party of four and freely trading among yourselves, you are severely losing out on loot? That doesn't seem like a very good "solution" to me. If I'm playing solo why should I be stuck being significantly behind on loot simply because I'm not able to have a dedicated group of four to exploit the "bind to game" mechanic? All this does is force people to group in order to massively up their exposure to items...
However, from a design stand point, it's Kevin Marten and cos. job to design a game where killing monsters is the best, most enjoyable way to get loot.
And I'm sure it was Dave Brevik's job to design a game where killing monsters was the best, most enjoyable way to get loot too... right?
The way you guys are talking about "killing monsters is the only real way to get loot" you'd think that D2 was the biggest failure in gaming history. Don't you think you're being just a TAD disingenuous and melodramatic about this subject?
EVERY ARPG of significance since D1 has had tradeable loot. Are you insinuating that, suddenly, the tables have turned and trading is not actually a part of the ARPG experience? If so, when exactly did that happen, and how come GGG doesn't seem to believe that? How come Blizzard is the only company that has to play nanny with its players?
People in PoE don't feel trading is fun, guess what? They don't trade. People in D3 don't feel trading is fun, guess what? They whine about it and ask Papa Blizzard to make the big mean bullies who are trading stop so that it doesn't ruin their experience.
The bottom line is no AHs = higher drop rates. No trading = higher drop rates. Higher drop rates = less "good feeling" about each individual drop. Fire up the console and see if you can play for an extended amount of time while still getting excited about drops.
The psychological effect is basically the same whether the game rains loot down on you or your friends rain loot down on you. Trying to differentiate between them to paint people who trade as "not real fans" because "killing monsters is the only legit way to get loot" is trying to make a semantics argument that has never existed in the history of ARPGs. It only exists now because it's convenient.
In all seriousness, I never heard anyone argue that loot should be BoA in D2 because people who got items from trading were somehow cheapening the experience of the entire community.
There are always ways to gain an advantage. I think the main problem with the AH was that people saw very easily how much they are behind while it's much easier to feel good about yourself when you can't compare that directly and easily. The diablo armory goes into the same cathegory.
I don't disagree, and it's mostly a discussion of "how much" if you get my meaning.
But for people who are arguing that "trading would let you gear up faster" it's now turned into "if you're not in a four-person group freely trading items for the benefit of everyone then you're going to gear up slower."
I'm not sure how that is actually better. In my mind, it's actually worse because it's forcing people into a very narrow playstyle in order to maximize their gear. If you don't play that way, you literally have about 1/4 the opportunity for gear as other people.... all because you can't trade outside of the immediate game.
In order to solve that all you have to do is come to the common-sense middle ground and allow people to trade with their friends and clans without all this "bound to game" nonesense. Suddenly you're still restricted to a very small microcosm of the D3 population with whom you can trade... but you're not forced into playing four-player games in order to have the optimal gearing experience.
To me that sounds pretty damned reasonable and probably exactly what we need. We don't need people to feel forced into playing co-op. The game is SUPPOSED to not be slanted in one direction or the other. If you want to play single-player you shouldn't be at a massive disadvantage. Right?
I doubt any character will find 120 legendaries per run - ever. No way.
He's not saying one character will find 120 per run. He's saying, based on the console drop rate, it might be possible for a group of four people to find 120 in a full game. If we're ONLY allowed to trade with those three people, well, you can see where he's going with that. Instead of casual trading when you see your friends online, the best way to gear up would be to have a dedicated group of four where everyone freely shares items.
Even this system is "exploitable" to gear up faster than average. That's the whole point. If you're not in a group of four, freely handing out loot you can't use to the others, you're behind. Just like if you don't use the AH. The problem still exists, except now, instead of relying on an external system, you're relying upon having three people in your group as much as humanly possible to hedge your bets against RNG.
Meeting in a trading game doesn't guarantee you a new buddy, doesn't even ensure the item you're getting is legit. It's just you taking the trader at their word that what they're giving you was fairly acquired.
Joining a public game doesn't guarantee you a new buddy. Therefore we should do away with public games.... RIGHT? Come on man, you have to know how flimsy and paranoid this argument is. OH LORD HE MIGHT NOT HAVE LEGIT ITEMS AND HE MIGHT JOIN MY GAME. Holy fuck! We should all hide under the bed and wait til the storm passes!
You may have already played in public games with people who have non-legit items. Is that going to stop you from continuing to join public games in the future? If not, you're not being very sincere about the subject.
Or even, bare minimum, "here, I don't need this quiver, I don't play DH, you can have it." If that player keeps that quiver, the only use they have for it is to salvage it. They stand to gain nothing by keeping it if they don't need it, and if people have spent a lot of time salvaging in their solo games, they have more incentive to give away items they don't need to others who might.
You really think that's how public games are going to pan out? That people are just going to give you shit instead of holding it for their alts?
If this change goes through, there will be little trading in public games due to random matchmaking. Unless two people both find items that the other wants in that game... there's no trade to be had. The only way this system makes sense is among friends where I can give you an item today and you "owe me one" in the future because the liklihood of the two of us both finding something the other guy needs is pretty slim, even with increased drops.
So if this system works poorly among strangers, and only clumsily among friends who trust each other... why not just make a system that actually works WELL among friends? Novel idea, I know. Took me a whole 12 seconds of thought to come to that groundbreaking conclusion....
Again, why bother with an obviously-inferior solution when the answer is right there for everyone to see? Why justify a system that will not work decently in public games? Why not just remove public games, period, then? Do you really think that people are going to be giving away items in public games? I can see it happening infrequently.... if none of their other characters need it and they don't need the crafting mats, but not much beyond that, simply due to the fact that getting something in return is unlikely and the whole idea of trading is to engage in a mutually-beneficial swap of items, not to rack up IOUs.
But I keep reading the statement: "if I find something cool I can't trade it to my friends!" But from a development standpoint - wouldn't they assume that you are playing the game...with your friends. So therefore - you can trade with your friends.
I have more than three friends....
That's the whole friggen problem! If they got rid of the "only with people in the game for two hours after the drop" and moved it to "only with your friends list, or clan" I bet the discussion would fizzle out almost immediately. Why? Because it's a much more reasonable solution.
It would prevent large-scale trading, something they presumably think is bad, and something that most people probably wouldn't miss, but wouldn't be so massively restrictive that it frustrates people.
The problem is this whole going to extremes shit. Why not just find the middle ground and please as many people as possible instead of going to the utmost extreme and wondering why it causes a firestorm?
In regard to the social aspect, again, you've made a good point...it would be a shame that you can't save an item indefinitely at least for a friend. Even if they made it so you can trade legendaries with friends indefinitely, but strangers only get a small window, I think that'd be enough of a compromise.
This is the problem. Why did they go to arguably the most extreme solution possible? Clearly most people just want some kind of compromise. I want it because I have a non-standard work schedule and my time to play with my friends is limited. If I'm stuck only able to trade with people in my game... well I may as well be offline, solo. And, for me, that's enough reason to underscore why, especially after removing the AH and implementing Loot 2.0, that it's patently stupid to take the most extreme stance possible on this subject.
Really, if they limit trading from millions of people down to 2-300 people... isn't that enough? What is the actual need to take it down to 3? There is none. There is no practical argument as to why it has to be 3.
Maybe so, but a game isn't "real life", nor should it try to be.
A game should give you a fun experience within its rules and limitations. If more limitations can increase the fun, then I'll gladly take them.
So, how in the world is being unable to trade items with your friends, people you've known for YEARS, just because they weren't online... or in your game at the tme... an INCREASE in fun?
How do some of you people manage to keep twisting it back to "It's more fun to find your own items?"
No one is arguing that it's not MORE FUN to do that. But it's also LESS FUN to go months, and months, and months without the drop you're really looking for and have no way at all to rectify that. It's a fine line and "only with the 3 other people for 2 hours after it drops" is setting up far too many LESS FUN scenarios in my mind. Sure, those orange lightshafts might be 1% more fun for me, but you've now forced me to sacrifice a bunch of other shit that I find fun.
So, yes, I might get more enjoyment out of the drops, but I'm getting less overall enjoyment from the game. Great! So while you're making a technically-correct statement, you're making that statement in a vacuum without considering the OTHER effects that a change like this will have that will make the game LESS FUN overall for many people.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Oh, I know that.
I'm just saying that if you REAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALY want the look of <item X> you could trade something for an unidentified <item X> and get it.
This system? You don't find it, you're fucked. And that seems massively severe for cosmetic changes. Afterall the transmog system works on the Pokemon "gotta collect them all" philosophy. That is mostly divergent with the BoA "probably won't collect them all" philosophy.
This is the general sentiment at incgamers. It's nice to know there ARE people out there who dislike this one-extreme-to-another approach. The AH was bad.... so we have to do 100% the opposite and not understand WHY the AH was bad.
Lack of understanding the "why" of a problem tends to lead to bad solutions. And here we stand!
Agreed! It doesn't make clans useless. They're still a way for players to find that "4-player co-op group" in which to share their "bind to game" items! They're still a private chat channel. They still have a use, for sure, but it's definitely diminished. Most of us assumed that clans would be the way to facilitate trading without doing anything fancy. Only the most fervent traders would find a need to go outside of friends and clans to trade. The rest of us would have almost certainly been satiated just to exchange items, arbitrarily, within our "circle" so to speak.
I think that's why you get this whole WTF?????????? reaction. Clans seemed like a natural solution (a friends list with global chat!) to allow people to trade with the others they gamed frequently with.... without facilitating any kind of large-scale trading. Maybe some of us were reading the tea leaves a bit too much.... but it sure seemed like they'd go hand-in-hand for a really cool experience.
/letdown
Transmog is just another reason this "bind to game" system sucks.
Want to change item appearance? Stuck with RNG. So a system that's supposed to be based around "collect them all" is gimped severely because trading ruined some peoples eFun.
But, hey, finding your own items is so fun that it doesn't matter how much other shit we ruin! When you see the orange lightshaft you'll cream your pants so much because you found it! That is if you haven't ragequit because the rest of the game has become so boring and frustrating because the only social aspects left in it are chat. And chat will soon be removed because it's another way that people can figure out that others have better gear than they do and all such things that give that kind of information MUST be removed to preserve the sanctity of the orange lightshaft!
I understand that, but the fact that we have "build-defining" items means that if you don't find X, Y, or Z, you're not just locked out of not having access to the item, but potentially the build it supports. I *do not* like that thought. If it were as simple as "I didn't find <item1> but I can replace it with <item2> or <item3>" then we're talking a majorly different story, but that's not what "build-defining" means to me. If items are that generic, then they're not going to define builds. They're going to be much closer to what we have now.
At the end of the day, though, it is demoralizing and NOT FUN to go the entire duration of an expansion cycle without having found an item and know you have no way to rectify that. Right now, even though I've not found a Mempo, if it truly means enough to me, I can go to the AH and fix that. I can assess my situation and make a decision based on pros and cons. I have SOME degree of control over my enjoyment of the game. Throwing everything to RNG is a really bad idea. This is why they have systems like smart drops and the mystic... but both of those are still based in RNG, so it doesn't feel like the appropriate escape.
Trading, however, has always provided that safety net. You don't find an item, but your heart is set on it, you can give up some of the other stuff you've amassed and attempt to get that item. This ability to assess a situation, choose from multiple options, it's the essence of life.
"Go grind harder" is just a cop-out answer for a system that's broken.
Good idea for a way to incentivize ladder without going the "exclusive items" route. And I agree that in a world without trading, some control like that is exactly what the game requires. I still fall back on the hyperbolic argument just to make a point:
*** "you" does not refer to Zero henceforth ***
What if the only legendary you found for your entire time in D3 was Firewalkers? Would you still argue that no trading is a good thing? Would you still tell others that they're acting "entitled" because they want to feel they have a shot to get what they want to make their character the way they want? Of course not. Everyone would agree that if you only ever got Firewalkers you have been the victim of some absolutely terrible RNG bad luck. So the question is... where is that invisible line in the sand between "terrible luck, needs fixing" and "suck it up nancy-boy?"
I spent years in D2 and I never got a PERFECT Vamp Gaze. But I did get several perfectly-servicable Vamp Gazes. However, I also never got *any* Windforce, even the shittiest of shitty Windforces. The first scenario made me feel like, even though I had attained good items, I still had something to strive for (the perfect... or near-perfect... Vamp Gaze). The second scenario made me felt beat-down by RNG.
There has to be a better system than saying "well if you feel like you deserve a Windforce then you're entitled." No, I'm not entitled. I'm just a gamer who is interested in a decent shot at character progression in a game dominated by randomized drops. This isn't WoW where I know if I kill Illidan there's a 1% chance he drops a Warglaive. There aren't set-in-stone loot tables like that.
So long as accounts can be sold this is the case. So, given that Blizzard hasn't made it impossible to buy accounts.... you probably should save yourself the heartache of finding out your "effort" is only "worth 10 bucks" and quit while you're ahead.
Because the basic idea of an RNG-based loot system is that everyone has a shot? By definition we are ALL entitled to feel like any particular item is within reach. Part of "feeling like any particular item is within reach" demands that, in case of bad luck, we have some kind of recourse. That's what Gheed was, that's what Haedrig was supposed to be, that's what crafting in PoE is. Even though these systems are all based in RNG, they give you the "ok you picked up 40 yellows so now you can make one more new one of your choosing" level of control that makes it feel not quite as bad. They provide recourse against being subject to pure RNG. That's exactly what trading does.
18 months into D3 I've still yet to find ANY Mempo. By the time I find one it won't be remotely relevant. So, yes, i think people should have a REASONABLE shot to find quality items before they become irrelevant and if that means I have to trade 12 Lacuni Prowlers (because that's how RNG has treated me) for one Mempo of Twilight, so be it. I fail to see how that undermines the legitemacy of drops or how it alters anyone's overall enjoyment of the game. But don't be so crass or naive to try to lecture me about how it's good for the game that people have gone 18, or more, months without finding a Mempo. That's the kind of bad luck that makes people give up, not the kind of thing that adds long-term incentives to the game.
Imagine that your luck is so bad that the hand you're dealt is only Firewalkers. You never find any other set/legendary item. Ever. It's completely unlikely that that would happen, but what would your opinion be? Would you still be spouting off about people feeling entitled, or would you be on the forums raging that other people are getting sweet items and you're only ever dropping Firewalkers? My bet is that you'd feel slighted by RNG, but here you are calling people "entitled" for wanting ways to minimize the bad effects that RNG can have.
I don't get how you don't understand that EXTREMELY RARE and NO TRADING don't mix. All that does is create a massive "luck gap" and frustration for people on the wrong side of that chasm.
So instead of AH barons... we have people who got insanely lucky with an "extremely rare" legendary that actually matched their class/spec? How in the world does that sound better? At least the AH stuff was in our control - if you wanted to make a lot of money you could. Relegating power purely to RNG is basically the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Now, Blizzard may have systems that help players "beat" RNG, but they never should have dropped this bomb without giving us information on the other things that keep it in context.
Errr Blizzard has said multiple times that Loot 2.0 was kinda given a "test ride" on the console. That makes it a bit more than an "absurd assumption."
Try to keep facts straight here.
I'm pretty sure there was a slide at Blizzcon that said that orange/green items were "endgame" gear. That implies that blue/yellow items are not "endgame" gear. I'm not sure what "market" will evolve around items that are inferior-by-design, but I doubt it's one that will have any serious participation.
Pros:
Right, and this is the problem that the people arguing against this "bind to game" system have.
Instead of taking the time to actually evaluate what no AHs + Loot 2.0 + other related shit in RoS does for the subject, they listened to some whackaloons on the forums and went directly to the "nuclear option."
In the course of what could amount to as little as a few days, we might be going from AHs to next-to-no-trading whatsoever. No middle-ground, no CREATIVE solutions that don't alienate players, nothing. Just full on nuke the fuck out of the ability to exchange items.
Instead of trying to find the "right" solution, all they've done is given us the complete opposite of what we had at launch. How anyone can think that's better is simply beyond me. It defies all logic. This whole over-reactionary approach to design really has to stop. Give the game time to "breathe" without the AHs and with Loot 2.0. See what happens when millions of people are playing THAT game before tying the noose and pulling the lever.
I don't NEED to trade with total strangers, I'll concede that. But I do NEED to trade outside of my immediate game and that concession must be made by the "people who trade are not playing legitly" crowd.
It does matter because the general argument is "finding your own gear is the only legit way to play and trading cheapens that experience."
If that were anywhere close to true that would mean that every other ARPG of any significance should have been a failure because the ability to trade items would cut severely into the enjoyment people had. But we know that's untrue. We know that is demonstrably false based on history. We know that trading doesn't ruin the game the way some of you folks are saying it does.
What we know is that this whole "if other people trade it ruins my enjoyment of drops" argument is completely overblown and basically fabricated contrary to fact. In fact, PoE players have made a stink that chat spam and forum trading is too cumbersome and have asked GGG for some method to facilitate trading. It seems that the only people who aren't thinking about this progressively (but instead regressively) are D3 players, who seem to be advocating for a nanny-state of social engineering where we're all forced to play the game exactly the same.
What about the fact that, under this system, unless you're playing in a party of four and freely trading among yourselves, you are severely losing out on loot? That doesn't seem like a very good "solution" to me. If I'm playing solo why should I be stuck being significantly behind on loot simply because I'm not able to have a dedicated group of four to exploit the "bind to game" mechanic? All this does is force people to group in order to massively up their exposure to items...
And I'm sure it was Dave Brevik's job to design a game where killing monsters was the best, most enjoyable way to get loot too... right?
The way you guys are talking about "killing monsters is the only real way to get loot" you'd think that D2 was the biggest failure in gaming history. Don't you think you're being just a TAD disingenuous and melodramatic about this subject?
EVERY ARPG of significance since D1 has had tradeable loot. Are you insinuating that, suddenly, the tables have turned and trading is not actually a part of the ARPG experience? If so, when exactly did that happen, and how come GGG doesn't seem to believe that? How come Blizzard is the only company that has to play nanny with its players?
People in PoE don't feel trading is fun, guess what? They don't trade. People in D3 don't feel trading is fun, guess what? They whine about it and ask Papa Blizzard to make the big mean bullies who are trading stop so that it doesn't ruin their experience.
The bottom line is no AHs = higher drop rates. No trading = higher drop rates. Higher drop rates = less "good feeling" about each individual drop. Fire up the console and see if you can play for an extended amount of time while still getting excited about drops.
The psychological effect is basically the same whether the game rains loot down on you or your friends rain loot down on you. Trying to differentiate between them to paint people who trade as "not real fans" because "killing monsters is the only legit way to get loot" is trying to make a semantics argument that has never existed in the history of ARPGs. It only exists now because it's convenient.
In all seriousness, I never heard anyone argue that loot should be BoA in D2 because people who got items from trading were somehow cheapening the experience of the entire community.
I don't disagree, and it's mostly a discussion of "how much" if you get my meaning.
But for people who are arguing that "trading would let you gear up faster" it's now turned into "if you're not in a four-person group freely trading items for the benefit of everyone then you're going to gear up slower."
I'm not sure how that is actually better. In my mind, it's actually worse because it's forcing people into a very narrow playstyle in order to maximize their gear. If you don't play that way, you literally have about 1/4 the opportunity for gear as other people.... all because you can't trade outside of the immediate game.
In order to solve that all you have to do is come to the common-sense middle ground and allow people to trade with their friends and clans without all this "bound to game" nonesense. Suddenly you're still restricted to a very small microcosm of the D3 population with whom you can trade... but you're not forced into playing four-player games in order to have the optimal gearing experience.
To me that sounds pretty damned reasonable and probably exactly what we need. We don't need people to feel forced into playing co-op. The game is SUPPOSED to not be slanted in one direction or the other. If you want to play single-player you shouldn't be at a massive disadvantage. Right?
But, it means you'll be so happy when you find that item seven years after it doesn't matter anymore!
That is if you haven't said "fuck it" and quit five years ago because you're sick of not having recourse against bad luck.
He's not saying one character will find 120 per run. He's saying, based on the console drop rate, it might be possible for a group of four people to find 120 in a full game. If we're ONLY allowed to trade with those three people, well, you can see where he's going with that. Instead of casual trading when you see your friends online, the best way to gear up would be to have a dedicated group of four where everyone freely shares items.
Even this system is "exploitable" to gear up faster than average. That's the whole point. If you're not in a group of four, freely handing out loot you can't use to the others, you're behind. Just like if you don't use the AH. The problem still exists, except now, instead of relying on an external system, you're relying upon having three people in your group as much as humanly possible to hedge your bets against RNG.
Joining a public game doesn't guarantee you a new buddy. Therefore we should do away with public games.... RIGHT? Come on man, you have to know how flimsy and paranoid this argument is. OH LORD HE MIGHT NOT HAVE LEGIT ITEMS AND HE MIGHT JOIN MY GAME. Holy fuck! We should all hide under the bed and wait til the storm passes!
You may have already played in public games with people who have non-legit items. Is that going to stop you from continuing to join public games in the future? If not, you're not being very sincere about the subject.
You really think that's how public games are going to pan out? That people are just going to give you shit instead of holding it for their alts?
If this change goes through, there will be little trading in public games due to random matchmaking. Unless two people both find items that the other wants in that game... there's no trade to be had. The only way this system makes sense is among friends where I can give you an item today and you "owe me one" in the future because the liklihood of the two of us both finding something the other guy needs is pretty slim, even with increased drops.
So if this system works poorly among strangers, and only clumsily among friends who trust each other... why not just make a system that actually works WELL among friends? Novel idea, I know. Took me a whole 12 seconds of thought to come to that groundbreaking conclusion....
Again, why bother with an obviously-inferior solution when the answer is right there for everyone to see? Why justify a system that will not work decently in public games? Why not just remove public games, period, then? Do you really think that people are going to be giving away items in public games? I can see it happening infrequently.... if none of their other characters need it and they don't need the crafting mats, but not much beyond that, simply due to the fact that getting something in return is unlikely and the whole idea of trading is to engage in a mutually-beneficial swap of items, not to rack up IOUs.
I have more than three friends....
That's the whole friggen problem! If they got rid of the "only with people in the game for two hours after the drop" and moved it to "only with your friends list, or clan" I bet the discussion would fizzle out almost immediately. Why? Because it's a much more reasonable solution.
It would prevent large-scale trading, something they presumably think is bad, and something that most people probably wouldn't miss, but wouldn't be so massively restrictive that it frustrates people.
The problem is this whole going to extremes shit. Why not just find the middle ground and please as many people as possible instead of going to the utmost extreme and wondering why it causes a firestorm?
This is the problem. Why did they go to arguably the most extreme solution possible? Clearly most people just want some kind of compromise. I want it because I have a non-standard work schedule and my time to play with my friends is limited. If I'm stuck only able to trade with people in my game... well I may as well be offline, solo. And, for me, that's enough reason to underscore why, especially after removing the AH and implementing Loot 2.0, that it's patently stupid to take the most extreme stance possible on this subject.
Really, if they limit trading from millions of people down to 2-300 people... isn't that enough? What is the actual need to take it down to 3? There is none. There is no practical argument as to why it has to be 3.
So, how in the world is being unable to trade items with your friends, people you've known for YEARS, just because they weren't online... or in your game at the tme... an INCREASE in fun?
How do some of you people manage to keep twisting it back to "It's more fun to find your own items?"
No one is arguing that it's not MORE FUN to do that. But it's also LESS FUN to go months, and months, and months without the drop you're really looking for and have no way at all to rectify that. It's a fine line and "only with the 3 other people for 2 hours after it drops" is setting up far too many LESS FUN scenarios in my mind. Sure, those orange lightshafts might be 1% more fun for me, but you've now forced me to sacrifice a bunch of other shit that I find fun.
So, yes, I might get more enjoyment out of the drops, but I'm getting less overall enjoyment from the game. Great! So while you're making a technically-correct statement, you're making that statement in a vacuum without considering the OTHER effects that a change like this will have that will make the game LESS FUN overall for many people.