If I could throw in my 2c on this topic, it's really not about what other people are doing. Other people are using bots, hacks, and account sharing to get ahead of the game, that doesn't mean people feel forced to use those methods just because it's possible.
It's about what is most efficient and effective within the bounds that Blizzard sets for us. If there is an easier way to accomplish something, people will feel the temptation to do it, even if it is less fun or can potentially ruin your experience in the long run, REGARDLESS of what other players are doing. Is it Blizzard's job to enforce or restrict certain styles of play? Only if they want as many people as possible to feel like they had the best experience possible and/or keep people playing the game longer. I think both Blizzard and the players share some responsibility in this matter, but it's not really fair to belittle this issue as though it just comes down to peer pressure.
Yes but with the current ideals because we can't really trade they boost the drop rates so high that it becomes trivial within weeks. It has been confirmed drop rates were affected because of the AH, now with the removal of AH drop rates will naturally increase.
It's all about the tuning and too many people think, that they'll drastically overdo it.
Yes, drop rates are going to increase (in quality), but no one said, they'll shower us in epic loot.
How does other players trading deter your enjoyment?
That's not what this discussion is about. Your trading doesn't affect me at all.
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 as everyone knows by now, the better loot you acquire, the less fun killing monsters is, since you have to wait longer for that next upgrade. Sure, high drop rates will make this happen anyway, but it's not like trading won't have the same result, if not quicker.
But that's the issue here.
Trading only gets you to the point where killing monsters is no longer fun that much quicker.
So if the drop rates for RoS require limititations on trading from a design standpoint, you are going
to experience that "finding better loot, less fun killing monsters, harder to find an upgrade" idea regardless.
Why aren't you in favor of allowing trading which should lead to lower drop rates thus increasing
your playtime towards finding better loot?
It's all about the tuning and too many people think, that they'll drastically overdo it.
Yes, drop rates are going to increase (in quality), but no one said, they'll shower us in epic loot.
In my sum up of the whole thread I'm fine with the current proposals IF they balance loot drops. Let’s assume that not all legendaries are great and let’s assume we can still have a lot of crappy stats on them due to RNG (thought this was getting addressed). Were basically left with the same scenario we have now, we find a bunch of legendaries but 99.9% of the time they become brimstones because RNG is too large. The carrot on the stick is just maximizing stat rolls? This hardly seems some we want, but as I'm typing this it seems more apparent this is the direction they are going in since the drop rates are so high.... sigh now I'm a sad panda.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing Diablo since 97. I know nothing and having nothing good to say, I be a troll.
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.
Why aren't you in favor of allowing trading which should lead to lower drop rates thus increasing
your playtime towards finding better loot?
Kind of a vague statement. How much lower? How long should it take to farm to you have all your gear? Some people say 500 hours others think 1000 hours is okay. Some want to get all their loot in 100 hours. Extending the loot hunt to facilitate trading is what the AH era D3 was all about. And I hear most people didn't really enjoy that.
But that's not really the issue...
The elephant in the room is that there is nothing beyond the loot hunt in Diablo 3, (until Ladders arrive, perhaps) so it's in their interest right now to make sure playing the game stays appealing as long as possible. Looking at it that way, this decision makes a lot of sense.
@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.
@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...
How does other players trading deter your enjoyment?
That's not what this discussion is about. Your trading doesn't affect me at all.
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 as everyone knows by now, the better loot you acquire, the less fun killing monsters is, since you have to wait longer for that next upgrade. Sure, high drop rates will make this happen anyway, but it's not like trading won't have the same result, if not quicker.
But that's the issue here.
Trading only gets you to the point where killing monsters is no longer fun that much quicker.
So if the drop rates for RoS require limititations on trading from a design standpoint, you are going
to experience that "finding better loot, less fun killing monsters, harder to find an upgrade" idea regardless.
Why aren't you in favor of allowing trading which should lead to lower drop rates thus increasing
your playtime towards finding better loot?
I'll say it since no one else will. I'd be fine with the drop rates staying the same as they are now, if only they "fixed" the loot. The roll ranges on Legendary items is so large, it seems that 92% of the time you get a Leg drop, it's useless. The roll range of an iLvL 60-63 Leg shouldn't vary from absolute garbage all the way to godly.
Apparently they're fixing this, as well, all Legs can roll at high iLvL's. Just these two things alone would make it seem like we're getting far more Legendary items. If they bump up the drop rate much at all, we're gonna be getting way too much. Our cups with run over, and I'm worried that they're gonna take it too far in a further desire to cater to noobs/casuals.
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...
Why are you going to play with your friends? Fuck that, I'll play by myself 4x over! Now I get geared 2-3x faster than you!
ALL YOU SILLY NON MULTIBOXERS ARE DOING IT WRONG! PLAY MY WAY!
@All the people who feel their play or enjoyment is dictated by others.
I mean you already have 4 account to do it now, right? Because it's the most efficient way to play for loot without the RMAH. Oh you don't? You mean to say that the most efficient way to play the game isn't what you choose to do?
Wait so like you have a choice to play how you want? I wish I had a choice to play how I wanted.
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.
Okay, couple things going on here, shaggy...
1) No one argued that items in D2 should be BoA...because the amount of games with that kind of a mechanic back then was slim to none. It's not like today, where D3 enters the market surrounded by BoA alternatives. D3 came out last year, and entered a much different gaming landscape.
2) "How come GGG doesn't seem to believe that?" Simple. GGG is an indie company, GIVING Path of Exile away for free, not having to answer to shareholders, advertisers, and bottom lines. That's why. GGG can literally do whatever they want. I was playing PoE last night. They just threw up a new patch, and a few minutes before I stopped, a system message appeared, "There's a bug with how [forgot the monster name] is doing damage. Will patch it tomorrow." These guys have nothing to do beside work on PoE. Meanwhile, Blizzard has the WoW expansion going on, Reaper of Souls going on, Hearthstone going on, Heroes of the Storm development in the background, "Titan" whatever that is, and continuing to maintain most games that have come out in the past 10 years AND putting out fires that rage on a daily basis on D3 forums over off the cuff comments regarding trading. That's bloody why.
3) "How come Blizzard is the only company that has to play nanny with its players?" Why don't you take a look at the past year and a half of Auction House use. Honestly, I've hated hating the AH...on paper, it's a great tool and a great idea. And the AH itself doesn't sicken me nearly as much as how people have royally abused it to completely break the game, then when they deny their own responsibility, they complain that Blizzard is at fault. That's why Blizzard has to "play nanny" and apply rules. Because for the past 15 bloody years, Godly Plates of the Whale, duped runes and SOJs have been absolute joke. Does that mean that Blizzard should tie players' hands and keep them from trading outright? No. But the simple act of applying boundaries to corral a community packed with players (not all, but many many) who can't help taking every shortcut possible isn't wrong, in and of itself.
4) "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." This, shaggy, should absolutely be classified as a personal opinion, as well as the accuracy. Yes, without the AHs, drop rates may rise. But that doesn't at all mean they'll raise drop rates because they're limiting trading on PC. And I sincerely hope you, and everyone else quoting console legendary drop rates have actually played the console to see how true or false that is, instead of taking everyone's bloody word for it. The reason that console players tend to get overgeared and bored isn't because drop rates are high...it's because (and I believe ruksak, among others, said this before) items on the console remain the same narrow scope of increasing stats and numbers, as well as having an extremely narrow amount of activities to do (outside of general farming, XP grinding, key farming and uber runs) and a very thin online community. Thus, of course console gets boring. Loot 2.0 will be boosting Legendary quality to not only increase numbers, but broaden the scope of what those items can do. Many of them will be build changing, game changing, and strong REGARDLESS of individual power. Thus, most people will keep and hunt a variety of them in order to have gear options, as opposed to "well, this is my gear, this is all i need, done." Like it is now. I haven't found any upgrades for my Monk in quite a few months. Most stuff I pick up, I either brimstone or vend. In Loot 2.0? That won't happen nearly as often.
I'll say it since no one else will. I'd be fine with the drop rates staying the same as they are now, if only they "fixed" the loot. The roll ranges on Legendary items is so large, it seems that 92% of the time you get a Leg drop, it's useless. The roll range of an iLvL 60-63 Leg shouldn't vary from absolute garbage all the way to godly.
Apparently they're fixing this, as well, all Legs can roll at high iLvL's. Just these two things alone would make it seem like we're getting far more Legendary items. If they bump up the drop rate much at all, we're gonna be getting way too much. Our cups with run over, and I'm worried that they're gonna take it too far in a further desire to cater to noobs/casuals.
I was trying to say this before, but absolutely, this is the key that a lot of people are missing.
Legendaries are NOT going to be raining. It will SEEM like more are dropping, because DIFFERENT ones are dropping, but not all legendaries are the same. That's part of the problem with D3 as it is now. Some people, like Maffia, have barely found any, and with quality being so bad, the whole process of finding a legendary tends to bleed together. Since no legendaries really stand out as being special or desired or popular or "sought after," there's no awesome jewel in the distance that one hopes to get, nor are there any special hopes of gameplay changing.
In Loot 2.0, drops won't just be getting more powerful, they'll be more interesting, they'll be more diverse, they'll do more for peoples' characters than just raise or lower numbers on a stat page. And as such, more of them will be desired to hold onto. More of them will be viable to be stashed as gearing OPTIONS, as opposed to "well, this doesn't raise any of my numbers, so I'm trashing it...oh look, another one of these that never raises any of my numbers, I'm trashing it."
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.
This is all else I'll say on this matter, I've probably spent more time in this thread than I should, ;-)
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.
It would still cause people to engage and meet in-game and help each other and work together. Loot 2.0 will be a huge improvement in many arenas, and even if people are freely trading just about all items, people will still want to acquire collections of strong legendaries for, like I said, a wider variety of gearing options.
Which is part of what made D2 so much fun for so long. Experimenting with skill combinations, gear combinations, and making unique and fun builds and showing them off. That can happen in a limited trading scenario OR a free trading scenario. The differences, in that particular regard, are minimal.
Truthfully, I want to get more into trading, even if it's just with friends. I don't want to get every single piece from other people, but I also don't want to feel guilty that exchanging an item with someone is unfair. In a lot of ways, it's not...especially if people do what I tend to do, and that's give people items of higher "market value" than what I'm getting.
Most trades I've done, that's what I do...because most items' personal value to me is higher than the market value.
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.
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.
Regardless of how I feel about trading, and this proposed direction by the devs, I can concede this compromise too. Like I said...I want to trade. I believe killing monsters is the coolest way to get loot, yeah...but I also don't want to feel guilty about trading either. So in some way, I'm with you.
For them to find some middle ground, and allow free trade among friends and/or free trade in clans...that would be the best compromise, and I wouldn't just feel better about it, but I'd be proud to trade in an environment like that.
Between now and launch, that's where I'm going to hope it goes.
The elephant in the room is that there is nothing beyond the loot hunt in Diablo 3, (until Ladders arrive, perhaps) so it's in their interest right now to make sure playing the game stays appealing as long as possible. Looking at it that way, this decision makes a lot of sense.
That's another problem they are trying to address in RoS,
From CM Vaneras:
At some point around the time when your character is all maxed out and fully equipped with great legendaries, you will be more likely to find a good sidegrade than a good upgrade, but thanks to loot 2.0 as well as the Mystic, you will have some more interesting options to adjust and improve your gear.
Allowing players to freely trade their legendaries/sets shouldn't be an issue here.
You'll notice this assumption, and I want to get it out of the way: 'A player playing on an island can enjoy himself. The traders will vastly outpace him in gear, but that is to be expected.' If a nontrader cannot abide by this thought (I'd say this is pretty childish/petulant, but oh well)
So far, the best compromise I've heard yet is the Bind on Trade angle. Once a piece of gear switches accounts, it gets locked.
The advantages to this are clear;
1) An effective item sink preventing saturation. i.e. no flipping.
2) Bot accounts cannot switch items to other accounts. They would have to operate differently and at risk of being caught and having accounts banned with loads of botted items being erased.
3) Legit players would be able to freely trade.
The disadvantages would be;
1) You couldn't loan items to friends and be able to get them back.
2) You couldn't trade an item you traded for previously to recoup your value.
People have to understand that with the AH's down, we'll see the same behavior from gold/item websites that we've seen for years in D2. That being, them entering open games en-mass, spamming their ridiculous adverts. A bind on trade may help cut this down substantially.
@ruksak how would that work with item dropping mechanic?
If you drop an item for a friend, once he picks it up is it "bind on account" from that point onwards? Is that mechanic even possible, from a technical standpoint? And how do you convey that idea or explain to players that's how things work (it's pretty unintuitive imo)? If throwing things on the ground doesn't "bind" them, wouldn't bots and thir party websites still be able to function?
Just a couple doubts that came to mind. I kinda like the premise of the mechanic, though.
@ruksak how would that work with item dropping mechanic?
If you drop an item for a friend, once he picks it up is it "bind on account" from that point onwards? Is that mechanic even possible, from a technical standpoint? And how do you convey that idea or explain to players that's how things work (it's pretty unintuitive imo)? If throwing things on the ground doesn't "bind" them, wouldn't bots and thir party websites still be able to function?
Just a couple doubts that came to mind. I kinda like the premise of the mechanic, though.
They can track whether an item belongs to you or if its up for grabs based on whether you have picked it up yet or not. I'd say its definitely possible to track whether an item is on its "original" account.
So, if you find an item, and then drop it, the next person who picks it up is bound to it.
So, ya, possible from a technical standpoint. Not sure if its viable from a design standpoint.
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.
so RoS endgame will be self found only , but they still wont give us offline mode ... whats the point of online only if we are playing self found only ....
To make self found only they will probably boost the drop rates to become like the console version one, which will make the game really casual , and we gonna have online only console version for PC ...
GJ blizz
Online requirement is to encourage people to play together (regardless of the loot/trading situation), and to prevent hacks/piracy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's about what is most efficient and effective within the bounds that Blizzard sets for us. If there is an easier way to accomplish something, people will feel the temptation to do it, even if it is less fun or can potentially ruin your experience in the long run, REGARDLESS of what other players are doing. Is it Blizzard's job to enforce or restrict certain styles of play? Only if they want as many people as possible to feel like they had the best experience possible and/or keep people playing the game longer. I think both Blizzard and the players share some responsibility in this matter, but it's not really fair to belittle this issue as though it just comes down to peer pressure.
It's all about the tuning and too many people think, that they'll drastically overdo it.
Yes, drop rates are going to increase (in quality), but no one said, they'll shower us in epic loot.
http://eu.battle.net/d3/en/profile/Sol77-2972/hero/66110450
But that's the issue here.
So if the drop rates for RoS require limititations on trading from a design standpoint, you are going
to experience that "finding better loot, less fun killing monsters, harder to find an upgrade" idea regardless.
Why aren't you in favor of allowing trading which should lead to lower drop rates thus increasing
your playtime towards finding better loot?
In my sum up of the whole thread I'm fine with the current proposals IF they balance loot drops. Let’s assume that not all legendaries are great and let’s assume we can still have a lot of crappy stats on them due to RNG (thought this was getting addressed). Were basically left with the same scenario we have now, we find a bunch of legendaries but 99.9% of the time they become brimstones because RNG is too large. The carrot on the stick is just maximizing stat rolls? This hardly seems some we want, but as I'm typing this it seems more apparent this is the direction they are going in since the drop rates are so high.... sigh now I'm a sad panda.
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.
Kind of a vague statement. How much lower? How long should it take to farm to you have all your gear? Some people say 500 hours others think 1000 hours is okay. Some want to get all their loot in 100 hours. Extending the loot hunt to facilitate trading is what the AH era D3 was all about. And I hear most people didn't really enjoy that.
But that's not really the issue...
The elephant in the room is that there is nothing beyond the loot hunt in Diablo 3, (until Ladders arrive, perhaps) so it's in their interest right now to make sure playing the game stays appealing as long as possible. Looking at it that way, this decision makes a lot of sense.
@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...
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Wise ElderI'll say it since no one else will. I'd be fine with the drop rates staying the same as they are now, if only they "fixed" the loot. The roll ranges on Legendary items is so large, it seems that 92% of the time you get a Leg drop, it's useless. The roll range of an iLvL 60-63 Leg shouldn't vary from absolute garbage all the way to godly.
Apparently they're fixing this, as well, all Legs can roll at high iLvL's. Just these two things alone would make it seem like we're getting far more Legendary items. If they bump up the drop rate much at all, we're gonna be getting way too much. Our cups with run over, and I'm worried that they're gonna take it too far in a further desire to cater to noobs/casuals.
BurningRope#1322 (US~HC)
Request an invite to the official (NA) <dfans> Clan
Why are you going to play with your friends? Fuck that, I'll play by myself 4x over! Now I get geared 2-3x faster than you!
ALL YOU SILLY NON MULTIBOXERS ARE DOING IT WRONG! PLAY MY WAY!
@All the people who feel their play or enjoyment is dictated by others.
I mean you already have 4 account to do it now, right? Because it's the most efficient way to play for loot without the RMAH. Oh you don't? You mean to say that the most efficient way to play the game isn't what you choose to do?
Wait so like you have a choice to play how you want? I wish I had a choice to play how I wanted.
Okay, couple things going on here, shaggy...
1) No one argued that items in D2 should be BoA...because the amount of games with that kind of a mechanic back then was slim to none. It's not like today, where D3 enters the market surrounded by BoA alternatives. D3 came out last year, and entered a much different gaming landscape.
2) "How come GGG doesn't seem to believe that?" Simple. GGG is an indie company, GIVING Path of Exile away for free, not having to answer to shareholders, advertisers, and bottom lines. That's why. GGG can literally do whatever they want. I was playing PoE last night. They just threw up a new patch, and a few minutes before I stopped, a system message appeared, "There's a bug with how [forgot the monster name] is doing damage. Will patch it tomorrow." These guys have nothing to do beside work on PoE. Meanwhile, Blizzard has the WoW expansion going on, Reaper of Souls going on, Hearthstone going on, Heroes of the Storm development in the background, "Titan" whatever that is, and continuing to maintain most games that have come out in the past 10 years AND putting out fires that rage on a daily basis on D3 forums over off the cuff comments regarding trading. That's bloody why.
3) "How come Blizzard is the only company that has to play nanny with its players?" Why don't you take a look at the past year and a half of Auction House use. Honestly, I've hated hating the AH...on paper, it's a great tool and a great idea. And the AH itself doesn't sicken me nearly as much as how people have royally abused it to completely break the game, then when they deny their own responsibility, they complain that Blizzard is at fault. That's why Blizzard has to "play nanny" and apply rules. Because for the past 15 bloody years, Godly Plates of the Whale, duped runes and SOJs have been absolute joke. Does that mean that Blizzard should tie players' hands and keep them from trading outright? No. But the simple act of applying boundaries to corral a community packed with players (not all, but many many) who can't help taking every shortcut possible isn't wrong, in and of itself.
4) "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." This, shaggy, should absolutely be classified as a personal opinion, as well as the accuracy. Yes, without the AHs, drop rates may rise. But that doesn't at all mean they'll raise drop rates because they're limiting trading on PC. And I sincerely hope you, and everyone else quoting console legendary drop rates have actually played the console to see how true or false that is, instead of taking everyone's bloody word for it. The reason that console players tend to get overgeared and bored isn't because drop rates are high...it's because (and I believe ruksak, among others, said this before) items on the console remain the same narrow scope of increasing stats and numbers, as well as having an extremely narrow amount of activities to do (outside of general farming, XP grinding, key farming and uber runs) and a very thin online community. Thus, of course console gets boring. Loot 2.0 will be boosting Legendary quality to not only increase numbers, but broaden the scope of what those items can do. Many of them will be build changing, game changing, and strong REGARDLESS of individual power. Thus, most people will keep and hunt a variety of them in order to have gear options, as opposed to "well, this is my gear, this is all i need, done." Like it is now. I haven't found any upgrades for my Monk in quite a few months. Most stuff I pick up, I either brimstone or vend. In Loot 2.0? That won't happen nearly as often.
I was trying to say this before, but absolutely, this is the key that a lot of people are missing.
Legendaries are NOT going to be raining. It will SEEM like more are dropping, because DIFFERENT ones are dropping, but not all legendaries are the same. That's part of the problem with D3 as it is now. Some people, like Maffia, have barely found any, and with quality being so bad, the whole process of finding a legendary tends to bleed together. Since no legendaries really stand out as being special or desired or popular or "sought after," there's no awesome jewel in the distance that one hopes to get, nor are there any special hopes of gameplay changing.
In Loot 2.0, drops won't just be getting more powerful, they'll be more interesting, they'll be more diverse, they'll do more for peoples' characters than just raise or lower numbers on a stat page. And as such, more of them will be desired to hold onto. More of them will be viable to be stashed as gearing OPTIONS, as opposed to "well, this doesn't raise any of my numbers, so I'm trashing it...oh look, another one of these that never raises any of my numbers, I'm trashing it."
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.
This is all else I'll say on this matter, I've probably spent more time in this thread than I should, ;-)
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.
It would still cause people to engage and meet in-game and help each other and work together. Loot 2.0 will be a huge improvement in many arenas, and even if people are freely trading just about all items, people will still want to acquire collections of strong legendaries for, like I said, a wider variety of gearing options.
Which is part of what made D2 so much fun for so long. Experimenting with skill combinations, gear combinations, and making unique and fun builds and showing them off. That can happen in a limited trading scenario OR a free trading scenario. The differences, in that particular regard, are minimal.
Truthfully, I want to get more into trading, even if it's just with friends. I don't want to get every single piece from other people, but I also don't want to feel guilty that exchanging an item with someone is unfair. In a lot of ways, it's not...especially if people do what I tend to do, and that's give people items of higher "market value" than what I'm getting.
Most trades I've done, that's what I do...because most items' personal value to me is higher than the market value.
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.
Regardless of how I feel about trading, and this proposed direction by the devs, I can concede this compromise too. Like I said...I want to trade. I believe killing monsters is the coolest way to get loot, yeah...but I also don't want to feel guilty about trading either. So in some way, I'm with you.
For them to find some middle ground, and allow free trade among friends and/or free trade in clans...that would be the best compromise, and I wouldn't just feel better about it, but I'd be proud to trade in an environment like that.
Between now and launch, that's where I'm going to hope it goes.
All right, I'm done, :-)
That's another problem they are trying to address in RoS,
From CM Vaneras:
Allowing players to freely trade their legendaries/sets shouldn't be an issue here.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Wise ElderThe advantages to this are clear;
1) An effective item sink preventing saturation. i.e. no flipping.
2) Bot accounts cannot switch items to other accounts. They would have to operate differently and at risk of being caught and having accounts banned with loads of botted items being erased.
3) Legit players would be able to freely trade.
The disadvantages would be;
1) You couldn't loan items to friends and be able to get them back.
2) You couldn't trade an item you traded for previously to recoup your value.
People have to understand that with the AH's down, we'll see the same behavior from gold/item websites that we've seen for years in D2. That being, them entering open games en-mass, spamming their ridiculous adverts. A bind on trade may help cut this down substantially.
BurningRope#1322 (US~HC)
Request an invite to the official (NA) <dfans> Clan
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Wise ElderIf you drop an item for a friend, once he picks it up is it "bind on account" from that point onwards? Is that mechanic even possible, from a technical standpoint? And how do you convey that idea or explain to players that's how things work (it's pretty unintuitive imo)? If throwing things on the ground doesn't "bind" them, wouldn't bots and thir party websites still be able to function?
Just a couple doubts that came to mind. I kinda like the premise of the mechanic, though.
They can track whether an item belongs to you or if its up for grabs based on whether you have picked it up yet or not. I'd say its definitely possible to track whether an item is on its "original" account.
So, if you find an item, and then drop it, the next person who picks it up is bound to it.
So, ya, possible from a technical standpoint. Not sure if its viable from a design standpoint.
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:Online requirement is to encourage people to play together (regardless of the loot/trading situation), and to prevent hacks/piracy.