'Legacy' items policy, re:patch 0.10.5

Just a reminder that D2 has legacy items too. For example have you heard of 5/100s?

They were small charms (1 inventory space wide) with +5 str, 100 life. They could no longer spawn after a certain patch but those who had them kept them. And it got to the point where there was only like 15 left in hardcore and they were very valuable and it gave ppl who had a ton of wealth, something to spend on rather than be bored after getting perfect gear on everything after 10 years of playing.

I guess the point i'm getting at is: certain games had it, and it when the legacy is stronger than the new, the game is still balanced and the legacy hunt is fun for collectors. this isnt game breaking so try and calm down.
IGN: @GreenDude
Последняя редакция: GreenDude#3233. Время: 5 апр. 2013 г., 20:59:27
But its why legacy items are bad... gaining wealth just because devs nerf something and you have this in stash... not with skill, not even with luck) because you dont have more luck than player who found this item after nerf).

Also they will be RMT traded like hell... just like exalts now.

"
KarraKurri написал:
Its exacly what the plan to do..

iomagine with all imbalance in game atm... i bet there will be hundreds of changes to items... and with release of new support gems even more (bacause unique will super OP with new gem) in year or two each unique will have two legacy versions?

Its just ridicolous.

And its only Silverbranch.. there are far more imbalanced and OP uniques in game.. some (like Kaoms chest are gamebreaking tbh).


LEgacy items are rly bad idea. It rly sucks if you dont have tech to do thi in other way. If you have and its your descision to do this in that way its worst decision ever.



oh my gawd get your kaoms now it will be the arcaines valor 1.08

"
KarraKurri написал:
But its why legacy items are bad... gaining wealth just because devs nerf something and you have this in stash... not with skill, not even with luck) because you dont have more luck than player who found this item after nerf).

Also they will be RMT traded like hell... just like exalts now.



Some players who I will not named have got like 50 demi gods from CB because during the first few races not many people played the game yet and those guys would win every race by a giant margin. These guys could get rich because they heard about the game first.

What about chancing a koams after 500 tries (chances are 1:500) pre-patch with a new unique golden plate. Now the odds will be 1:500 then 50% chance to get koams out off both uniques. The patch devs made are making it unfair for those who dont already have one? The logic isn't there. Its a game that requires balance and patches. its part of the game.
IGN: @GreenDude
"
Its a game that requires balance and patches.

Legacy items break the balance. That's all.
✠ ✠
"
Greendude120 написал:
Just a reminder that D2 has legacy items too. For example have you heard of 5/100s?

They were small charms (1 inventory space wide) with +5 str, 100 life. I guess the point i'm getting at is: certain games had it, and it when the legacy is stronger than the new, the game is still balanced and the legacy hunt is fun for collectors. this isnt game breaking so try and calm down.


Some of those small charms and old uniques (with no level requirements) made some interesting builds possible. Not uber or OP builds by any means. That D2 allowed you to make viable, or semi-viable characters like Wirtadins, Wand Zealots, Melee Enchantress and even zero point characters (you could level and use gear but weren't allowed to allocate any stat or skill points) was half the fun.

That you could find lots of games to join, meet new players and find interesting chat channels (or develop your own) was part of the fun as well. IMO, the ladder system broke apart too many playing groups as some wanted to continue developing and playing their hard won characters and others wanted the thrill of competing with a brand new slate.

I have a feeling GGG is trying to find a good way to implement longer term race leagues without breaking the community apart. If they have a good period of down time (a couple months) between race leagues [if such are implemented] it could work.

I do think they should use caution when reworking uniques as part of their attraction is that they have known properties.

The Silverbranch nerf is symptomatic of the larger imbalance between melee and aoe/ranged characters. If (and I know it isn't an easy thing to do) melee was balanced out with ranged and aoe then people wouldn't flock to silverbranch and poison arrow in the first place.

I'd REALLY like to see them fix/buff Poison Arrow with some passive nodes for it, a slight higher end % damage scaling, and split the poison damage so that 1/2 of it sticks to the monster hit with the arrow and half as a cloud where the arrow hit.


















"The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis
PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910
Последняя редакция: DalaiLama#6738. Время: 5 апр. 2013 г., 21:43:30
"
wiggin написал:
"
Its a game that requires balance and patches.

Legacy items break the balance. That's all.


Exacly. You dont leave bullet in a gunshot wound also.

"
GGG Headquaters:

GGG_DEV #1: Chris! ppl are using OP unique and faceroll our hard game!

CHRIS_GGG: NERF IT! NERF IT ALL!

PATCH DAY - unique is nerfed but legacy versions stays in the game

CHRIS_GGG: Patch deployed? They now must struggle with our hard content yea? muahahaha..!11

GGG_DEV #2: Sry Boss... thay just still use Legacy versions... :/ Also Legacy versions are so OP now that they reaches insanely high prices in currency... ppl buy them with dollars because none have 4567 exalteds.




Whats the point?

Silverbranch because races... OK. Crappy reason byt OK. But rest on items? Can you imagine how it will look in two years with current patch shedule? Legacy Clusterfuck.
Последняя редакция: KarraKurri#7943. Время: 5 апр. 2013 г., 22:08:59
"
Torguemada написал:
Adding support for the non qq side, awesome work GGG in not fracking up peoples hard earned items.
Also all of those whining and pointing out that they can buff all Volls so nerfing all Sillverbranches should be just as simple, do read the post earlier in the thread explaining the fundamental difference between the 2 changes Vols is mechanics change whereas Branch is a change to the numeric values the item can roll when it drops or is divined.

Missing the point completely. Why was Silverbranch changed (nerfed)? Because it was deemed too strong by the balance team. Fine, that isn't a problem, I don't think anyone disagrees that the amount of leveling power Silverbranch gives in the early parts of the game is very great, if not too great. So why are the OP "legacy" versions allowed to remain in their overpowered state? It makes no sense, and sets a terrible precedent. And it isn't a simple matter of changing the numeric values. +2 bow level can't be rolled anymore. It isn't like the patch notes said "The Silverbranch unique item has been changed so that it grants +1 OR + 2 to bow skills. Old ones will not change unless you use a Divine Orb on them." If that was the case then there won't be a problem. If an item is changed like Silverbranch is, where the item is now (or in the near future) different than the previous version, then it should be like how everything else in the game is changed. Making a comparison, no one would say "Oh my god, the ground slam gem is nerfed, why can't I have the old ground slam as a legacy gem where it has the old damage?" GGG's decision on this is a clear mistake, and I hope they change this.

And at the person saying "Game devs know best" I'm sure you never had a single complaint about any game you have ever played before, since everything in that game is part of the dev's vision, and the devs are always better than the worthless plebeian playerbase. Funnily enough, the devs themselves disagree with you and have stated that players do have insights that devs don't have.
IGN: ragol
"
KarraKurri написал:
But its why legacy items are bad... gaining wealth just because devs nerf something and you have this in stash... not with skill, not even with luck) because you dont have more luck than player who found this item after nerf).

Also they will be RMT traded like hell... just like exalts now.



- when I say "you" in this post it's a generic POE player not anyone in particular.

As for gaining wealth without skill or luck - I disagree.

It takes some effort, trading or luck to get that "legacy" unique in the first place. It takes some personal willpower not to sell off anything with value in your stash just so you can make your existing characters more powerful.

Players who found and traded uniques early may have gotten more for them they would have gotten a bit later, but that isn't the game's fault. Players who sold items when chaos orbs were falling out of the sky probably got a lot more for them. Items are still overpriced in terms of currency, IMO based off of relative drop rates, and so someone who has recently sold an item has likely gotten more wealth than they deserved. Again, that's not the game's fault. It won't be the game's fault when an item has legacy stats (for better or worse) either.

Someone who sold their Silverbranch last week for a few more orbs than it is worth can't really complain that its now worth even more. Your item, your choice to sell or hang onto it.

Likewise, someone who refuses to sell a Lioneye's glare for 3 exalts and then sees the price plummet to a single exalt because GGG makes a buffed version can't complain either.

You can sell that old dusty painting in the garage for a few hundred now, or hang onto it and hope it appreciates like a Picasso later. Timing is everything -patience can be a blessing or a curse in trading.

That trade should be instantly and consistently gratifying, with no regrets and complete predictability would turn POE into another D2 auction house fiasco.

No one is forcing you to sell your uniques. No one is stealing orbs from your stash. That you get a good deal or a bum deal at times is part of the trading game.

For instance: You can turn all those low level orbs into alts and fuses yourself, or you can let someone profit off doing the work for you.

That someone will be crying because they sold their unique for orbs to roll a five or six link is inevitable. I already know plenty of people that I game with that have spent 5 times the currency to get back items they have sold when they decide they actually need it.

In the meantime, players like myself who hang onto every unique they find (ooh, a whole half stash page - must be pay to win) and remain currency poor should not be penalized because we didn't choose to sell everything to get uber gear right away.

I've spent most of the last 2 weeks trying to find a Mortem Morsu claw for my cyclone witch. I'm hoping the poisonous hit DOT combined with all those hits makes the build viable. I'm not sure how many GCPs worth of drops I have lost trying to find that one unique, and I don't expect GGG to compensate me for the unfair loss of my potential wealth. I do think it would be unfair, if I did find a Mortem Morsu after those 100+ hours, and GGG decided to nerf all of them and take the poisonous hit function away.

If they nerf it before I find one, than I'll just have to save up and try to get it despite the extra costs. Such is the rough life of an exile. At least the chance to still acquire one, legacy or not, will still be there.



It takes some luck, foresight and effort to acquire and hang onto items to use later. That other players are short sighted, greedy and impatient and want to complain when those factors deprive them of wealth they think they deserve is silly.


Some players may sell/buy or horde Silverbranches for lots of exalts. GGG might turn around and undo the nerf or even buff new Silverbranches so they are even better, and someone, somewhere will act as if they have been cheated when it was their own greed.

Its like the passive skill tree - choices have consequences, and in POE that is a very good thing.















































"The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis
PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910
Последняя редакция: DalaiLama#6738. Время: 5 апр. 2013 г., 22:27:10
"
Phaeded написал:
That's the first time I read a GGG post and had to make sure which Mr. Wilson was writing it. You're full of shit on this one Chris. You can't retro-buff and not retro-nerf. And if you are going to do that, you have to give us a WAY better reason than this load of crap.

Those "time-limited" items can't be had any other way. Silverbranch can still be found, just in a nerfed version. So your argument is really weak.
Just so you don't need to check, I'm not Chris, or any other Wilson. I can't explain the reasoning behind this specific decision, because I didn't make it, but I can help show how other factors then buff/nerf are at play here.

"
KoTao написал:
If you can buff current volls, you can nerf current silverbranches. That reply didnt make much sense.

And why are you nerfing silverbranch anyway? There are plenty of uniques that enable players to faceroll early content- why target one in particular, and why now?

You might also want to reconsider the precedent youre setting here. Then again, perhaps this is just another in a long line of planned copy pastes from d2. Share the reasons behind this decision with us?
There's a lot of discussion going on in here about retroactively changing things, and people making claims about what can/can't be done, so I'm going to clear some of those up.

Volls:
With Voll's, we change what stat that particular mod gave. Anytime we do this, it will be retroactive will all items with that mod - anytime an item is loaded from the database, it stores which mods it has, and for each mod, the values of each stat in that mod. It doesn't store what the stats are since that would be a waste of space - those are looked up in the game data based on which mod it is. The items store that they have the mod "UniqueVollsPowerChargeCrit" (name made up for example purposes) with the stat value "1" (in this case a non-zero value means 'do this', because it's a boolean stat - you either gain the charges or you don't).
Before the patch, loading this item from the database would cause a lookup to discover that the mod "UniqueVollsPowerChargeCrit" has one stat, which is "power_charge_on_crit", and thus the item is given a value of "1" in that stat.
After the patch, that same lookup is done, but we changed what stat was associated with that mod - instead of "power_charge_on_crit", that mod now has the stat "power_charge_for_each_enemy_you_crit", which has different behaviour, so the item, when loaded, is given the value of 1 in this stat instead. The stored item wasn't changed, but what stat is associated with that mod did, and since all items use the same data for that, that can't not be retroactive.

We could instead have disabled Voll's from dropping, made a new unique with the same base type and name, etc, but with a new mod for the new stat, instead - in that case the 'new Voll's' would have the new stat and mod, and the 'old Voll's', which would technically be a different unique that no longer drops, would have the old stat and mod, which in theory would allow us to emulate non-retroactive changes, but over time that would get more and more problematic to maintain as the list of 'legacy' mods that are kept in data only for non-dropping old items increases.

Silverbranch
In the case of Silverbranch, as many of you will have concluded from my above explaination, we didn't change what stat it uses, but what value the mod could roll. When and item gains a mod, the value of each stat is rolled within that mod's value range. Previously, for Silverbranch, that value was 2-2, so all of them had +2 to bow gems. Post-patch, it's 1-1, so all have +1.
Existing items are already in the database, stored with the correct mod, and with the value of "2" for that stat, so they still have +2 - when loaded, they get the mod, look what stat that mod gives, and then apply the stored value to that stat. The mod's range was only checked when the stat was rolled, so they load with the "2" value they were stored with.
It's possible for us to make this kind of change retroactively, and this has been done in the past, but it involves a bunch of work setting up stuff to upgrade all items to a new version, and defining that upgrade code as checking for that particular mod and changing the stored value for it if present. We usually use these 'migrations' for more fundamental changes (such as when skill gems first got quality, we had to migrate all the items to a new version and have that migration add the capability for quality to all existing items that were skill gems). It takes a bit of work and a lot of testing to make very sure there's no corner case that will break items, so we don't usually do these just to change mod values unless absolutely necessary.

Skills:
These have been brought up a bit in the thread, so I'll discuss those as well. Gems don't have stats. All a gem has is a level, and what effect it grants - which is either and active skill or a support effect. This is looked up in a big table, which stores all the stats a particular skill/support has at each possible level, and the values of those stats, as well as what stats it gets fro quality, and how much per point. When we change the stats or values of a skill/support, we're changing that table, so similar to the mod case, it has to be retroactive, as the new and old gems are identical - we're just changing the info they both look up. This is why rebalancing skills always applies to existing gems - we change the skill the gem grants, not anything about the gem item itself.

So regardless of the desirability/undesirability of "legacy" items, which I'm not qualified to comment on, these changes took the form that they'd naturally take if we just changed those things, and it would have required a bunch of extra work to make the Silverbranch change be retroactive, or even more work to make the Voll's one not be. I can't say whether or to what degree other factors, such as wanting or not wanting legacy items also factored into the decision, but this hopefully explains why these changes don't indicate something explicitly being done for one change and not for another - they're different kinds of changes with different consequences regarding existing items.

Пожаловаться на запись форума

Пожаловаться на учетную запись:

Тип жалобы

Дополнительная информация