Gear scaling system — any reason to keep playing pve for next 8 months? - Page 9

Sulan · 07-01-2009, 06:29 PM

I think the general Idea is fucking retarded to begin with, but if they implement it, they at least need to have several levels pass before the deterioration begins. Like at level 80, level 75 items might start to gimp out. You wouldn't want ot wear most 75 crap at 80 anyway.

This really devalues mastercrafted armor and weapons for leveling alts. By the time you can get a new suit, the old suit is absolutely fucking worthless. Why spend coin or rares on something when it's going to devalue almost immediately. This change effectively makes two whole fucking classes utterly pointless.

Ariven · 07-01-2009, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firamas

I just don't understand the anger here. This system has worked just fine in WoW. The same concept is being applied here.

Tell me what the fuck is inherently wrong with making old tier gear no longer viable against new gear? It's a design decision. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. It's simply one way to handle itemization in a tiered system.

Because this isn't "old tier gear not longer viable against new gear" this is "the more experienced you get, the crappier your gear gets".

I would have no problem at all with a level 78 item that isnt as effective against a level 83 mob as it is vs a level 82 one. That is more logical than you leveling up and getting better, yet your gear gets -worse-

firamas · 07-01-2009, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoss

I think you are way off base firamas. Have you ever heard of the wisdom of crowds? Collectively, a crowd of people is much more intelligent than any single member of that crowd.

I think there was a book with this title.

The Wisdom of Crowds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I flat out disagree with that. If you're taking one member at random from the crowd and using them as the basis of comparison, then yes, it's likely that the will of the majority could be more appropriate.

That's not what we're talking about here though. I'm talking about having people in power (either in politics, on a dev team, whatever) that fully understand the dynamics of the system and are intelligent enough to guide the course of the group as a whole.

The reason politicians don't go against the will of the majority and do whatever they think is best is because the primary goal of any politician is to get remain in power. The populace is generally not patient enough to wait the years (decades) it takes for sweeping changes to have a significant effect or intelligent enough to even understand all of the variables that affect the system at hand.

Similar deal with MMO's... you have the same bell curve distribution that you see anywhere in life... thus, a few people who really "get it", a lot of average-intelligence players who may think they understand everything, and a few people at the lower end of the spectrum who are so off the mark that they can be instantly excluded from the conversation. The problem here is that subscription $$ is at stake, and while the people at the far right of that bell curve might rejoice in the changes that lead to a healthier game, there's a large chunk of people that are selfish and dumb and will whine and cry incessantly at any change that threatens their warped sense of entitlement towards their avatar's performance. Some of them will quit, taking $$ away from the game studio's bottom line. It's a fine balance between appeasing the retards to keep a company in business, or doing what should be done to fix game balance. In the end, continuing down the road of making unhealthy balance decisions to appease the majority of your subscriber base is the driving factor that contributes to the slow death of any MMO.

The top 2% of the population should be making policy decisions for everyone.* This isn't always the case. We deal with the results of our own imperfect leadership every minute of every day.

Fuck the "wisdom of crowds". I know where I fall on the bell curve, I don't trust anyone below that to make decisions for me. I reserve the right to be as arrogant about that as I want.

*I'm a libertarian and fundamentally disagree with this, but in a representative republic this is the goal. If it were up to me the govt would exist to provide for national defense and basic infrastructure (utilities and municipalities, including law enforcement), and everything else would be privatized. Let the people who are educated enough to make the right decisions for themselves and their families get ahead, and let everyone and everything else fail. Eradicate any form of welfare. Failure is a healthy thing. It weeds out the weakness inherent in any system. The socioeconomic Darwinism that libertarians believe in is so beautiful, so naturally elegant.. and unpalatable to the majority because they are not advantaged within its ruleset. We'll probably never see it put in place.

Deson · 07-01-2009, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firamas

I flat out disagree with that. If you're taking one member at random from the crowd and using them as the basis of comparison, then yes, it's likely that the will of the majority could be more appropriate.

That's not what we're talking about here though. I'm talking about having people in power (either in politics, on a dev team, whatever) that fully understand the dynamics of the system and are intelligent enough to guide the course of the group as a whole.

The reason politicians don't go against the will of the majority and do whatever they think is best is because the primary goal of any politician is to get remain in power. The populace is generally not patient enough to wait the years (decades) it takes for sweeping changes to have a significant effect or intelligent enough to even understand all of the variables that affect the system at hand.

Similar deal with MMO's... you have the same bell curve distribution that you see anywhere in life... thus, a few people who really "get it", a lot of average-intelligence players who may think they understand everything, and a few people at the lower end of the spectrum who are so off the mark that they can be instantly excluded from the conversation. The problem here is that subscription $$ is at stake, and while the people at the far right of that bell curve might rejoice in the changes that lead to a healthier game, there's a large chunk of people that are selfish and dumb and will whine and cry incessantly at any change that threatens their warped sense of entitlement towards their avatar's performance. Some of them will quit, taking $$ away from the game studio's bottom line. It's a fine balance between appeasing the retards to keep a company in business, or doing what should be done to fix game balance. In the end, continuing down the road of making unhealthy balance decisions to appease the majority of your subscriber base is the driving factor that contributes to the slow death of any MMO.

The top 2% of the population should be making policy decisions for everyone.* This isn't always the case. We deal with the results of our own imperfect leadership every minute of every day.

Fuck the "wisdom of crowds". I know where I fall on the bell curve, I don't trust anyone below that to make decisions for me. I reserve the right to be as arrogant about that as I want.

*I'm a libertarian and fundamentally disagree with this, but in a representative republic this is the goal. If it were up to me the govt would exist to provide for national defense and basic infrastructure (utilities and municipalities, including law enforcement), and everything else would be privatized. Let the people who are educated enough to make the right decisions for themselves and their families get ahead, and let everyone and everything else fail. Eradicate any form of welfare. Failure is a healthy thing. It weeds out the weakness inherent in any system. The socioeconomic Darwinism that libertarians believe in is so beautiful, so naturally elegant.. and unpalatable to the majority because they are not advantaged within its ruleset. We'll probably never see it put in place.

What's so amazing is that you really don't understand what that means, otherwise you could never have said any of that and would realize your position on the bell curve means jack shit in the world you dream of.

firamas · 07-01-2009, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deson

What's so amazing is that you really don't understand what that means, otherwise you could never have said any of that and would realize your position on the bell curve means jack shit in the world you dream of.

Well, I disagree completely (obviously?) with your statement. Would you care to actually expound on it so I can reply, or is a "nope you're wrong" argument the best I have to bounce off of here?

Deson · 07-01-2009, 09:09 PM

To fully recognize the libertarian ideal is to also recognize man is a social creature. You may be smart and on the better side of the curve but you couldn't survive being the asshole you're so proud of being. That's because no one would want to protect you past your point of usefulness and you wouldn't have the worthless masses to hide your abrasiveness. The top 2% shouldn't be making policy unless there is some universal measure of what the top is. How many smart people walk us into stupid situations? How many smart people don't realize their own weaknesses? Hey that Obama, pretty smart guy right? Pulled himself up by his bootstraps and became president, how that for top 2% leading you?

Relevant to the game though it's practicality and nothing you said means shit. Smart devs would never have walked us into this spot so Gage wouldn't be here bitching about us getting punished. Devs are however smart enough to know that when their revenue stream isn't having fun, they go away and fun is emotional and fickle. Typically though every time you change what works, people who were having fun my find themselves not doing so. An existing product has the customers it does for a reason and that can't be dicked with too much in the many ways you seem to favor.

firamas · 07-01-2009, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deson

To fully recognize the libertarian ideal is to also recognize man is a social creature. You may be smart and on the better side of the curve but you couldn't survive being the asshole you're so proud of being. That's because no one would want to protect you past your point of usefulness and you wouldn't have the worthless masses to hide your abrasiveness.

The social contract between all of us will be dictated by each person's willingness to extend their resources. The decision to devote personal resources (money, time) to help another should be left with the individual, not dictated by the government. That is the essence of libertarianism. Those who extend maximum resources should expect the same in return. Those who don't, should be prepared to take care of themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deson

The top 2% shouldn't be making policy unless there is some universal measure of what the top is. How many smart people walk us into stupid situations? How many smart people don't realize their own weaknesses? Hey that Obama, pretty smart guy right? Pulled himself up by his bootstraps and became president, how that for top 2% leading you?

Thus I followed that comment with: "This isn't always the case. We deal with the results of our own imperfect leadership every minute of every day."

I wasn't trying to define specifically what I meant by the top 2% comment, merely that when you put the best and the brightest in charge of a company or a country, you get the best results. That was sort of a veiled allusion to SoE's historically confused leadership...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deson

Relevant to the game though it's practicality and nothing you said means shit. Smart devs would never have walked us into this spot so Gage wouldn't be here bitching about us getting punished. Devs are however smart enough to know that when their revenue stream isn't having fun, they go away and fun is emotional and fickle. Typically though every time you change what works, people who were having fun my find themselves not doing so. An existing product has the customers it does for a reason and that can't be dicked with too much in the many ways you seem to favor.

The important thing is communication. If the changes are framed properly, and discussed in appropriate ways (read: explain exactly why and how the changes are going down) ahead of time, the community is much more willing to accept it. Having the Senior Producer get into a series of regular webcasts explaining the thoughts of the dev team months before changes are implemented for testing would go a long way.

Gaige · 07-01-2009, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firamas

The important thing is communication. If the changes are framed properly, and discussed in appropriate ways (read: explain exactly why and how the changes are going down) ahead of time, the community is much more willing to accept it. Having the Senior Producer get into a series of regular webcasts explaining the thoughts of the dev team months before changes are implemented for testing would go a long way.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. As if.

firamas · 07-01-2009, 11:12 PM

Heh, you can convince the populace to go along with pretty much anything as long as you frame it in the right light.

Crabbok · 07-02-2009, 12:44 AM

maybe after we hit lvl 90, we can simply self mentor back to 80 and get our stats on our gear back. I bet thats what is planned.