Feedback: RNG rerolling is not crafting, discuss

"

pneuma a écrit :

Besides, the deterministic method exists already, as you've said, in the form of trading. If a random chance option is removed, then all the people that enjoy the slot-machine are left out in the cold.

Who asked for eliminating anything? They'd have to make fusings an ornament to achieve that and it ain't happening, and if you think 'eliminating' as in 'nobody would gamble if we had a crafting formula', then double(?) chance for high linking on 20% quality item should be incentive enough to test your luck. Besides, the favorite argument of gambling fans is 'people like gambling'... well fine, I say let's test it. It would probably turn out they like gambling about as much as they like FFA loot ;)

Devs are probably reluctant to do it because they wouldn't share the above opinion and would ask for a good deal more fusings than is the estimated average, and that would mean no end to complaints, like it was the case with bandit respec.

"

grepman a écrit :

even an ounce of RNG makes crafting unprofitable because buying an item you want will be cheaper and easier.

this is a lame, irrelevant, overused argument that has no bearing on the discussion

everybody knows trading is more efficient than crafting

everybody knows this. beat that into your head a few times

everybody knows it. it's a dead horse. it's obvious. it's nothing new. zzz.


that being said, orbs can still be useful and NOT SHITTY, even if it's strictly cheaper to trade for something instead.

the best way to look at this thread is to compare crafting to crafting, not to compare crafting to trading.

the fact that i can expect a 6L somewhere between 1 and 10,000 fusings is not enjoyable

the fact that i can expect a decent physical roll somewhere between 1 and 10,000 alts is not enjoyable.

people are just too used to having shitty fucking terribad orbs it seems, they like it. they want crafting to be a random clusterfuck horrible experince. whatever.

there's just too much fucking variance. it's not needed. misguided. horrifically bad design.

the proof that this level of extreme variance isn't needed is the overpowered-as-shit uniques. they have guaranteed rolls. are you so fucking terrified of consistent end game rolls? have you seen uniques recently?

wtf is a unique if not a consistently rolled item?

"

Pneuma a écrit :

I shouldn't have to say "in my opinion" after everything I write to imply that it is, in fact, my own opinion.

Given that I'm not GGG, my opinion is only that and has no other meaning. Hell, if you can figure out a way for my feedback to directly turn into code in the game, let me know.

Besides, the deterministic method exists already, as you've said, in the form of trading. If a random chance option is removed, then all the people that enjoy the slot-machine are left out in the cold.

I know it is your opinion, no need to clarify that. I was stating i have a problem with the logic behind it.

How exactly does that last paragraph make sense?

when you read my text you will see i am in favor of both keeping fuses as is and in ADDITION to this system adding a recipe to work towards. (the cost is irrelevant since it would be aimed at players willing to work for there own items, instead of shopping for them)

Basically what you are saying in the third paragraph, or at least how i interpret it is,

"Fuck all the people who don't like to gamble"

Did i get that right? Since you imply, its either only gambling or only a fixed recipe, the two cannot exist mutually next to one another.(for some reason beyond my comprehension.)

Really that logic baffles me, i find it interesting, but it still baffles me.

Edit: seems like raics already made a similar point. didn't read that before i posted sorry.

"

ScrotieMcb a écrit :

I don't believe "fear" is the most appropriate name for the feeling; "disapproves" fits better.

Why do I disapprove? Because I actually believe RNG is a good thing. I am in favor of vendor formula to provide a minimum level of RNG-free itemization, but that's a lot like saying I'm in favor of a 5% minimum on chance to evade rather than letting it dip below 5%, or that I'm in favor of the 2% minimum on XP effectiveness in overleveled areas rather than letting it dip below 2%. RNG-free is just fine to establish a baseline from which progression can begin; it's a horrible idea when it comes to progression in general.

Players should be able to use vendor formula to create items which would generally have buyouts of 1 Chaos or less on the market, if they don't feel like trading for them; it's perfectly reasonable to get to 72-75 maps with such items. They shouldn't be able to vendor up items which cost significantly more than that; render unto gambling that which is gambling's. A 1+ Exalt 5L is completely out of the picture, much less anything 6L.

You two confuse me deeply.

Both you and pneuma.

I was gonna make an elaborate post for you scrotie, but i simply don't feel the need for it after being halfway.

You begin in your other arguments by stating stuff like "prices are variable and dependent on consumer and seller".(not in those words, but that's basically what it comes down to)

Then you present in your own argument "yes vendor formula's are fine, as long as they don't breach a limit of 1 chaos "perceived market value" items"

Some things don't add up here, i would call it logic, but that's just me. How exactly does one create vendor recipes based on a fixed price within a bartering economy?

Fuck this post is already to long for my taste. Your logic, i find troubling sir, it seems quite egocentric. Without empathy for other player-experiences but your own. I also enjoy the system as it is, but i am not one to say others should also not enjoy there-selves in this playground i call PoE.

Peace,

-Boem-

Edit : and no, fear fits your feeling perfectly. Must be why your example stayed on the surface instead of saying why you "disapprove" of implementing a 6-link recipe.

Edit 2 : btw, nobody is saying remove RNG, that would be crap for player-experience. What people are asking is an alternative they can work towards THEMSELVES, so they have a goal to work to. instead of relying on the market, then just shopping X-Y item, without any feeling of accomplishment from it.

"

Veruski a écrit :

"

grepman a écrit :

even an ounce of RNG makes crafting unprofitable because buying an item you want will be cheaper and easier.

this is a lame, irrelevant, overused argument that has no bearing on the discussion

everybody knows trading is more efficient than crafting

everybody knows this. beat that into your head a few times

everybody knows it. it's a dead horse. it's obvious. it's nothing new. zzz.

it has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion, you just don't want to engage in it for some reason and would rather spew insults. to each his own I guess.

the power of orbs is inversely proportional to ability to trade. if you're in self find league, best believe you'll be using tons of recipes and most of orbs available to you.

hell Im poor by standard standards, but from time to time I go and yolo exalt some items I use which were bought for like 1-2 ex each. this makes no sense with ability to trade for better items easily.

"

that being said, orbs can still be useful and NOT SHITTY, even if it's strictly cheaper to trade for something instead.

the best way to look at this thread is to compare crafting to crafting, not to compare crafting to trading.

lets compare crafting to crafting, then.
show me a competitive ARPG that has useful, reliable, very powerful end game items available through crafting, with items NOT account bound. go.

"

the fact that i can expect a 6L somewhere between 1 and 10,000 fusings is not enjoyable

the fact that i can expect a decent physical roll somewhere between 1 and 10,000 alts is not enjoyable.

so a glorified vendor recipe of 1k fusings for a white 6L guaranteed is enjoyable ?
enjoyable is a subjective word. for me a glorified vendor recipe is not enjoyable. might as well have all possible combination of items on sale at vendor just like in RPGs that arent item-based.

you complain about variance yet having less variance doesnt mean shit.
you need lets say a 3-6 k range to get 6L.
so you grind to get 6k fuses to be sure to get your 6L

with trading enabled, there is zero difference of grinding for craft or grinding for trade.

not to mention, a rigid guaranteed number range will scare the fuck off a new player (how the hell is he getting 6k fuses? ). whereas right now he gets an illusion of being able to compete given a lucky drop

"

Boem a écrit :

You begin in your other arguments by stating stuff like "prices are variable and dependent on consumer and seller".(not in those words, but that's basically what it comes down to)

Then you present in your own argument "yes vendor formula's are fine, as long as they don't breach a limit of 1 chaos "perceived market value" items"

Some things don't add up here, i would call it logic, but that's just me. How exactly does one create vendor recipes based on a fixed price within a bartering economy?

I guess there might be some confusion there. I do believe that individual prices are variable according to, and thus dependent on, individual buyers and individual sellers; however, as the market grows from one individual trade to a mass collective of many, many trades, the impact of each individual diminishes. It is an asymptotic relationship; as the size of a society approaches infinity, the impact of free will in an individual approaches zero, and the behaviors of the collective as a whole become increasingly deterministic. If you've ever read the Foundation books, it's essentially the Hari Seldon principle — although, obviously, a population of infinite size never actually occurs, and thus deterministic models, while useful, never become fully dependable.

Note that the Thrift Shop law follows this principle. The smaller the population, the more likely it is to be inaccurate; the larger the population, the more true the Thrift Shop law becomes.

As such, it isn't that hard to predict what "1 chaos buyout item" or "1 alch buyout item" mean; we've had plenty of experience with the economy by now to gain a rather intimate familiarization with approximately what this means in discrete terms, even if that familiarization falls short of perfection. There are a few other factors — such as league length and whether Hardcore or not — but I'm only trying to provide a ballpark estimate of what strength of items I'm talking about here, not an exact value.

"

grepman a écrit :

it has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion

no dude it has literally zilch to do with the discussion

it's a form of derailment and it's circular logic. it goes something like this:

"you can trade instead of craft, therefore it's irrelevant how good or bad crafting is, because trading will always be cheaper. therefore, the crafting system is already perfect and it's fine that it is shitty and the orbs are basically unusable."

what a shitty, irrelevant argument.

if anything, it gives more reason to make orbs better. because it wouldn't break the economy at all, because trading would always remain the cheaper option.

"

grepman a écrit :

so a glorified vendor recipe of 1k fusings for a white 6L guaranteed is enjoyable ?

no, but i think there should be far less variance.

a recipe would be zero variance, which is a very different concept than less variance. i know it's hard for some people to distinguish between concept like "less" and "zero," but you should at least try.

"

grepman a écrit :

enjoyable is a subjective word.

you could make this dumb, irrelevant argument about anything. most words are subjective to some degree. however, most people would say eating is enjoyable. probably fucking as well. humans in general find eating and fucking enjoyable. are you going to debate that, as well?

maybe some people find bashing their head against a cement wall to be more enjoyable than fucking. who knows.

"

I guess there might be some confusion there. I do believe that individual prices are variable according to, and thus dependent on, individual buyers and individual sellers; however, as the market grows from one individual trade to a mass collective of many, many trades, the impact of each individual diminishes. It is an asymptotic relationship; as the size of a society approaches infinity, the impact of free will in an individual approaches zero, and the behaviors of the collective as a whole become increasingly deterministic. If you've ever read the Foundation books, it's essentially the Hari Seldon principle — although, obviously, a population of infinite size never actually occurs, and thus deterministic models, while useful, never become fully dependable.

Note that the Thrift Shop law follows this principle. The smaller the population, the more likely it is to be inaccurate; the larger the population, the more true the Thrift Shop law becomes.

As such, it isn't that hard to predict what "1 chaos buyout item" or "1 alch buyout item" mean; we've had plenty of experience with the economy by now to gain a rather intimate familiarization with approximately what this means in discrete terms, even if that familiarization falls short of perfection. There are a few other factors — such as league length and whether Hardcore or not — but I'm only trying to provide a ballpark estimate of what strength of items I'm talking about here, not an exact value.

Aside from this post being nicely written, you and i both know the community in PoE is ever changing, both over years and in between league's. So fundamentally by your logic, 1 chaos items will keep shifting in value.

One could guess i agree, just as one could "guess" the appropriate amount of fusings required to 6-link an item with a 100% chance.

After such a guess, the market will adopt this new value and compensate for it. However the basic vendor currency rates remain the same so they can only change "so much or so little" to compensate for this change.

So i will ask you, straight up.

What is your reason for disapproving of a 6-link recipe with a "insert random number cost approved by GGG"?

1) It doesn't effect the ladder

2) It will have little impact on the economy (a new max value will be forged by the community and a new "base-line" will be formed, value's will shift but the economy will not R.I.P)

3) It will improve the sense of choice among the player-base.(specifically for those that enjoy making there own gear and being independent of the market/gambling)

I urge you, answer my question before addressing my 3 statements here.

Edit : typo's.

"

ScrotieMcB a écrit :

"

Legatus1982 a écrit :

1. Things are always sold at or above cost, never below cost irl. Your entire argument is hilarious since it changes this fact conveniently for your case.

Apparently you've never been to Walmart. Small business set prices at or above their own costs, then Walmart goes and charges an even lower price, which Walmart can afford because their costs are lower. One's personal cost is irrelevant.

Walmart doesn't set lower prices than cost, they simply have a lower cost value. Anyone who sells lower than cost irl loses money as a business. This isn't even debatable and I have no idea why you're attempting to act as if businesses routinely sell at below cost.

This is why I simply cannot have a reasonable discussion with you, ever, because no matter how hard I try to reason with you, the stuff you say is so far separated from reality that it becomes impossible to have a logical debate with you.

You are routinely posting stuff like this in threads throughout these forums and for the life of me I can only imagine it's because you are paid to spread misinformation, because nobody in the world is actually dumb enough to think stuff like this, as much as I might disagree with you on pretty much every thread you've ever visited, I know that even you aren't this dumb.

"

Boem a écrit :

What is your reason for disapproving of a 6-link recipe with a "insert random number cost approved by GGG"?

Short answer: You say RNG is bad; I say that's a silly thing to believe, because RNG is good. For a longer answer, I think I'm going to make a new thread in General Discussion.

"

Legatus1982 a écrit :

"

ScrotieMcB a écrit :

"

Legatus1982 a écrit :

1. Things are always sold at or above cost, never below cost irl. Your entire argument is hilarious since it changes this fact conveniently for your case.

Apparently you've never been to Walmart. Small business set prices at or above their own costs, then Walmart goes and charges an even lower price, which Walmart can afford because their costs are lower. One's personal cost is irrelevant.

Walmart doesn't set lower prices than cost, they simply have a lower cost value. Anyone who sells lower than cost irl loses money as a business. This isn't even debatable and I have no idea why you're attempting to act as if businesses routinely sell at below cost.

This is why I simply cannot have a reasonable discussion with you, ever, because no matter how hard I try to reason with you, the stuff you say is so far separated from reality that it becomes impossible to have a logical debate with you.

If you're going to make that particular criticism of me, it would behoove you not to quote yourself; it reveals your hypocrisy.

You say "Things are always sold at or above cost" = delusional belief that all business are profitable and thus is too separated from reality for me to work with
You say businesses "routinely" sell at or above cost = reasonable belief that the business which fail to be profitable eventually cease to exist, thus something I can work with

Do you see the difference?

And by the way, by "routinely" you mean "sometimes." Some businesses do fail, because some business fail to sell at a price higher than their costs. There are factors which cause such failures, and factors which prevent them.

What I am saying in terms of PoE is: the practice of crafting something yourself is, from a big-picture perspective, a losing business strategy. This is because of the "only the best counts" nature of gear where upgrading a piece of gear means selling the replaced gear for whatever you can get, because any sale for greater than what the vendor would give is considered a profit. Virtually everyone is running a thrift shop, trying to unload their hand-me-downs for whatever price they can get... and there is no in-game system for depreciation, so used is not one bit worse than new. Unless there literally is no one else selling the item, you will be undercut, which means your only option is to lower your price to less than costs, or to not sell your item at all... unless you're using it yourself, in which case the only time the costs are justified is when no one else is selling it, because they're going to offer it for less than costs themselves.

In short, unlike real life, gambling has thrown against it a large list of factors which cause businesses to fail. It's similar to a small business which gets crushed by a new Walmart, unable to compete against such a juggernaut. The root cause is the nature of gear upgrades themselves — the fact you can only wear one chest or one helm at a time. This cause is too fundamental to the core of PoE to ever be removed; thus, the Thrift Shop Rule will always be in effect in this game.