Wrong priorities

"

Lonnie455Rich#2087 เขียน:

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.

What is the point in iterating upon SSF, when 90+% of people play in trade?

All that cool stuff you're dreaming about would've had to be removed from the game at some point. That is the definition of wasted resources.

I don't think you are reading a thing I'm typing.

Wouldn't you rather have a more polished, complete game right now than asynchrous trading?

Its about iterating on the game itself. Instead of the focus on economy/trade

Why would they have to remove druid/templar/marauder/other classes just because they used an ssf beta test.

They can deal with economic implications once they realize the implications of items in relation to how they change the character power curve.

If Burger king came out with a new burger, and they were doing internal testing. Then most of the testers said, the condiment combination in this burger is off, maybe try a different sauce. Then the guy in charge of this project said, you know what? I'll make the wrapper red and yellow instead of red and black. Then puts it on the market. Thats how i feel whenever i see dev time being spent on trade like this. Instead of focusing on launching another class.

Druid is coming in december. So in december it will start another 4 month session of 0 progress on balancing the game and any game analytics that give any real clear data because people will all be trying out the new class. If druid had such terrible animation problems then is it not possible to get templar/marauder/duelist ready to go? These 3 should be quite easy as they already have some skeleton of what these 3 classes are from poe1. much like they did tailwind/proj for deadeye, flasks and concoctions for pf.

Priorities...

LFA Are you pulling your 90% of the population stuff from the old chris wilson pocketbook? Melee isn't getting any changes because we wanted to update the game for the other 90% of players.

"

Lonnie455Rich#2087 เขียน:

Wouldn't you rather have a more polished, complete game right now than asynchrous trading?

Its about iterating on the game itself. Instead of the focus on economy/trade

The game itself cannot be properly iterated upon without taking trade and economy into consideration. That is the whole point you're supposed to argue, not just brush it off.

"

Lonnie455Rich#2087 เขียน:

They can deal with economic implications once they realize the implications of items in relation to how they change the character power curve.

No, they can't, because the sheer amount of imbalanced things would instantly wreck both their launch and the economy.
They have to deal with it now during EA - that along with bug/stress testing is its main point.

"

Jitter912#4278 เขียน:

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.

Propose the solutions. How are you gonna change those aspects?

"

KaosuRyoko#1633 เขียน:

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

It may not be the majority opinion, but it's the correct opinion.

+1 to literally everything Lonnie has said in this thread.

Here's something obvious that everyone busy glazing over the idea of asynch trading is missing:

Improvements to SSF are improvements to the entire game. Literally nothing which makes the game better for SSF players doesn't also make the game better for people playing in a trade league, whereas trade-focused changes don't even benefit 100% of players who are playing in a trade league.

I'm all for being able to buy items from people who are offline, but if you're asking me if that's more important than getting new weapons and skills into the game it's not even close.

Its like that 16 year old atheist on reddit who said he is gonna cure religious people

"

Lonnie455Rich#2087 เขียน:

If they wanted to get the game launched to 1.0 a lot faster

I don't think there is any real incentive for them to get to 1.0 faster. The longer EA the more they can sell the game for $30

"

ARealLifeCaribbeanPirate#2605 เขียน:

+1 to literally everything Lonnie has said in this thread.

Here's something obvious that everyone busy glazing over the idea of asynch trading is missing:

Improvements to SSF are improvements to the entire game. Literally nothing which makes the game better for SSF players doesn't also make the game better for people playing in a trade league, whereas trade-focused changes don't even benefit 100% of players who are playing in a trade league.

I'm all for being able to buy items from people who are offline, but if you're asking me if that's more important than getting new weapons and skills into the game it's not even close.

That's not what he said is it now? He is claiming trade/economy should be ignored altogether, which is ridiculous.

Also your statement works both ways, as proven in what years of iteration in poe1 have done to SSF without directly targeting its development.

"

Jitter912#4278 เขียน:

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.

Am I reading this right? PoE2 should had never existed. GGG should have sticked with PoE1 because I'm comfortable with it. Make PoE1 even better.