Wrong priorities

I’m probably too old to be allowed to move to New Zealand which is a shame, because frankly, GGG should have hired me years ago.
Let me be blunt: you're prioritizing the wrong aspect of the game.

You’ve invested significant time and resources into an asynchronous market purchase system. Sure, it’s slick. But it’s the wrong priority. That decision speaks volumes about what you believe matters most in your game and it’s a signal to players that GGG thinks the market is the core experience.
It’s not.

This direction implies that you believe players want to buy their way to victory. Some do, yes. But most of us? We want to play to win. We want to earn our triumphs through gameplay, not through hours of tedious trash collection followed by a trip to the market to buy success.

You’re heading the wrong way.

You should have doubled down on crafting. Streamlined the gameplay. Reduced the friction. Right now, there are too many mouse clicks, too many barriers, too much wasted time. The market should have remained an extension of crafting not its replacement.

This was a massive error in judgment.
You’ve enhanced a system that should have been expendable, while neglecting the systems that actually define the soul of the game. If you want players to stay, give them a game worth playing not just a store worth browsing.

Nothing better than claiming with no data that your opinion is the majority opinion. :P


Plus it's pretty irrelevant here. GGG explicitly wants the game to be designed around trade, so that's the game they're making even if there a group that doesn't like it. I think they've even started in the past that most players don't trade, but they still design the genre around trade. So even if you're right, they already know and are happy to keep doubling down on trade for the past over 10 years.

Do you ask other games to completely change their entire core system, or do you look for a game that is one you actually want to play? This is just as silly a request as asking Stardew Valley not to have so much farming imo.

In my opinion, the OP makes a valid point. Early on, GGG made having a no-gold economic model a selling point (which made the introduction of gold to the game feel weird when it happened). Wraeclast is a post-apocalyptic environment, and things that have a function, like currency items, were supposed to have value to the few who engaged in trade.

Turning the economy into a stock-market simulator followed player trends, and derailed the whole original milieu.

I have almost never engaged in trade (too fiddly and annoying), though I will happily treat my guild's stash like a Hobbit "mathom house." With the advent of the new asynchronous trade system, I won't be looking to buy anything, but I will (almost) certainly use it in PoE 1 to sell items for currencies I need to craft my own gear. But before I convert even a single Premium Tab to a Merchant tab, I'm gonna wait and watch to see how this pans out in practice. ='[.]'=

Last I checked there was a game mode available that disables trading.

Poe1 is already more balanced around SSF than trade, since you can target farm/craft almost anything you'd ever need, and trading utterly trivialises the game.
Poe2 will get to the same spot in due time as more mechanics are added.

We just going to ignore the plethora of other things that are coming with 0.3?
It's a massive step in the right direction.

You also need to be more verbose when describing your problems with 0.3.
You just posted a wall of text while not really managing to say more than some parroted buzzwords.

"

arandan#3174 เขียน:

Last I checked there was a game mode available that disables trading.

Poe1 is already more balanced around SSF than trade, since you can target farm/craft almost anything you'd ever need, and trading utterly trivialises the game.
Poe2 will get to the same spot in due time as more mechanics are added.

just because ssf exists doesnt mean his point is invalid.

If ggg is spending a large percentage of their dev time on trade/the economy. They're spending less time making the gameplay good.

We didn't miss out on druid/templar/marauder/whatever because of animations. We missed out on it because resources were put into trade/economical impacts. Which are completely irrelevant.

If they wanted to get the game launched to 1.0 a lot faster early access would have been ssf so the economy wouldnt trip them up constantly like it has. People wouldn't have been magic finding like they were, they wouldnt have duped temporalis. These things dont matter in ssf environment. They could have balanced the actual game then dealt with the economy later.

"

JODYHiGHR0LLER#6171 เขียน:

We just going to ignore the plethora of other things that are coming with 0.3?
It's a massive step in the right direction.

You also need to be more verbose when describing your problems with 0.3.
You just posted a wall of text while not really managing to say more than some parroted buzzwords.

Parroted from whom? Who is out there saying what he is saying.

"

Lonnie455Rich#2087 เขียน:

"

arandan#3174 เขียน:

Last I checked there was a game mode available that disables trading.

Poe1 is already more balanced around SSF than trade, since you can target farm/craft almost anything you'd ever need, and trading utterly trivialises the game.
Poe2 will get to the same spot in due time as more mechanics are added.

just because ssf exists doesnt mean his point is invalid.

Nowhere did I claim what you're trying to attribute to my post.

"

Lonnie455Rich#2087 เขียน:

If ggg is spending a large percentage of their dev time on trade/the economy. They're spending less time making the gameplay good.

We didn't miss out on druid/templar/marauder/whatever because of animations. We missed out on it because resources were put into trade/economical impacts. Which are completely irrelevant.

Citation needed.

"

Lonnie455Rich#2087 เขียน:

If they wanted to get the game launched to 1.0 a lot faster early access would have been ssf so the economy wouldnt trip them up constantly like it has. People wouldn't have been magic finding like they were, they wouldnt have duped temporalis. These things dont matter in ssf environment. They could have balanced the actual game then dealt with the economy later.

Go check both current and historical player metrics between trade and SSF. The game has to be developed around trade and EA is the only environment where it can be properly iterated upon.
SSF never was and never will be the primary focus, but it will get better with time, just as it did in poe1.

"

Lonnie455Rich#2087 เขียน:

"

arandan#3174 เขียน:

Last I checked there was a game mode available that disables trading.

Poe1 is already more balanced around SSF than trade, since you can target farm/craft almost anything you'd ever need, and trading utterly trivialises the game.
Poe2 will get to the same spot in due time as more mechanics are added.

just because ssf exists doesnt mean his point is invalid.

If ggg is spending a large percentage of their dev time on trade/the economy. They're spending less time making the gameplay good.

We didn't miss out on druid/templar/marauder/whatever because of animations. We missed out on it because resources were put into trade/economical impacts. Which are completely irrelevant.

If they wanted to get the game launched to 1.0 a lot faster early access would have been ssf so the economy wouldnt trip them up constantly like it has. People wouldn't have been magic finding like they were, they wouldnt have duped temporalis. These things dont matter in ssf environment. They could have balanced the actual game then dealt with the economy later.

We've had this conersation before. Better, less pain-in-ass trading is probably a net benefit for all of the trade league players, aka at least 90% of the population. Asynchronous trading is most likely a great addition to the game.
Also it probably didn't take half of GGG's office to program these new trading features.

Althaughent imma have to agree we need more content, more classes and ascendencies, and more atlas activities besides chasing towers.
Also let's all have a rucksack on every single class, locking this behind an ascendency is dumb let's get some atlas quest to unlock the bagpack on every class or something, please and thank you.

Your first comment is a facetious attempt to make the op aware that ssf existed. As if he didn't already.

There is no citation needed. GGG claims there is not enough time to complete things in the game they already had in the game before they released early access.

If the game is in "alpha" or "beta" right now. And there were only 300 people playing it. It wouldn't be a whole lot different than an ssf early access. Which is what game developers used to do with a few day window to let a lot more people in to server test. Allowing everyone to play while trade is enabled is only throwing a spike strip in front of the car that is poe2.

Don't act like temporalis dupes and the "rarity" debacle didnt cause complete chaos in the game and cost them a lot of time and energy at the office to deal with. Those are man hours. Man hours that could have been focused doing something productive instead of putting out fires.

I'm not saying it took half of gggs office to add asynch trading. The economical considerations of every item/passive/ascendancy/mod that is put into the game. If you had 0 economical impact to anything right now you can try a lot of really cool stuff instead of having to play it safe. Right now, if they want to add a crafting orb they have to consider 1000s of combinations of dumb crap that sctrade people do before they implement it and consider its impact on ground loot, trade, economy, etc. Its all time and energy.

And yes, that point on titan should give you stun/freeze immunity. You're a titan after all.