Well, it seems that someone else took up the ball you dropped and actually took a shot at the goal.
Interesting how people who complain about leeching are not able to carry their own arguments, but want to bask in the effort of others.
Anyways, happy to see that you are still reading both sides and are not just cheering on the side you are agreeing with.
Or suggest a non-invasive loot allocation mode that will allow us all to enjoy the game better.
And yeah, you are basically forcing him to play a mode he doesnt prefer or to leave the game. That is exactly what he was talking about. You are only proving that you didnt read his OP.
The use of ‘force’ by you and others is completely inaccurate and simple hyperbole.
If you don’t like the way a game is designed - don’t buy it, don’t play it. Incessant whining that the “game would be better if X” or “more people would buy it if X” aren’t credible from random forum posts.
Should be all imo. The primary purpose has been fulfilled then (by having an original 1.14 server).
But as long as the amount of games dont increase*, I dont think it would matter much. I guess there would be some overhead to running the different versions, but why would the actual, physical servers, care if the game it is running is 1.14 or 1.15, or if it is Classic or LoD. That shouldnt matter much. If someone can see why it would matter, I am interested of course.
*and if the amount of games did increase it would indicate D2R sold more copies, which Blizzard presumably would be happy about)
Not really. Solo is also there. That somehow wont add more FFA games either. As if that mattered at all.
What? SC and HC are split. Classic and LoD are split. Ladder and NL are split. By different rules no less.
Can they all choose to play together, by making new characters? Sure.
That is still much more severe splits than having a game toggle for FFA and Ploot, that does not require different characters.
Except solo and offline… And private games with friends where the loot system doesn’t matter either way.
Sure. Same goes the other way around. If you dont think D2R would be for you anymore, if it had Ploot, you could go find something else to play.
I dont think you should, as it would imo be a wild overreaction, but the choice would be available.
And I am sure some will if Ploot is implemented. But the game doesn’t have Ploot yet, so the argument that no one is being forced to play a game that doesn’t have Ploot yet stands. This isn’t about ‘forcing’ change - nobody reading this thread has the power to force Ploot into the game - simple as.
You are using imperative. Imperative is a way of forcing someone to do something verbally.
Hence “force”.
Your post is completely inaccurate and simple hyperbole as well.
We like the way the game is designed, but we prefer a different loot allocation mode and want to add it as an option.
It is not that hard to understand. You are oversimplifying and overgeneralizing because you have no grounds to tell us not to make this suggestion.
They are credible when backed up with 4 surveys with 4-9k participants.
And when looking at the current Arpg market.
And when applying common sense.
And when considering inclusion and accesibility.
And when listening to the original devs.
And when listening to the current devs.
Just saying.
And nobody is forcing it into the game.
We are simply trying to have an argument about it.
Somehow that seems to be unbearable for a certain part of the community…
Indeed.
Some people will go find other games if Ploot is not available. Others will apparently do the same if Ploot is available. It would be their choice.
And yeah, nobody are forcing anyone or anything here. There is a lot of nonsense going around about “demanding changes” or “plooters changing the game”. But obviously only Blizzard can do that.
Exactly. But that’s what I mean by hyperbole ‘demanding’ ‘forcing’ and so on. People here are discussing (at best), and at worst some juvenile trolling which I guess will cease once D2R is released
After reading the recent posts about a “split community” i have to admit that different servers may solve one problem but certainly create a known issue “splitting the community”. We might have to re think our options / possibilities in that regard or simply accept the fact.
Honestly the best compromise I saw recently was that Ploot would only be allowed, if implemented, in private games - as a toggle. The players who are absolutely certain that they want Ploot can play those, and the rest of the populace who are fine with pub games would continue to play in them as they have for decades.
I certainly have Imo splitting the community is a complete non-issue and always has been.
People are not going to have a substantially different gameplay experience because there are “only” 100000 people on the same server as themselves, instead of 200000.
It only matters when you get down to very low player populations, and in those cases the impact is felt even without the additional split. (like, 1000 vs. 500 in the community).
I think this could be okay too. Not great, but still a decent addition to the game.
The quality of your overall reply is on a completely different level. You’re now mostly focusing on reasons why adding a ploot toggle would be a positive change and not focusing quite as much on trying to dismiss other perspectives by framing them in an unfair or inaccurate way. That is what a proper discussion about this topic should look like.
This piece about cake is not an analogy that I think fits the situation though. There is not another cake. There is one cake and it is D2R.
A more suitable analogy would be that we both love the chocolate cake from this particular bakery, it’s the best I’ve ever had. Historically, they only make chocolate cake, they do just fine for themselves, there are plenty of other bakeries that sell other kinds… but now you’re trying to convince this bakery to make other kinds of cakes. You think that affects me in no way whatsoever but you’re wrong.
I have a legitimate fear that some of these other cakes will also be popular and people will be coming to this bakery for their strawberry cake now. Maybe the strawberry cake becomes a better seller and the bakery decides to only make only strawberry cakes now, or they only make chocolate cakes on the weekends, or they decide to only make cakes that are both strawberry and chocolate in one cake. Maybe they branch out more and start making banana cake and the smell of cooked bananas makes me vomit.
I might not be able to go to this bakery and enjoy a chocolate cake on a random Tuesday morning anymore and that would make me sad.
Now, would this be better for the bakery? Maybe. Would it be better for the people who prefer the strawberry or the hybrid? Yes. Would it be better for me? No. And it’s not right for you suggest otherwise.
It’s not fair or accurate to state that this change wouldn’t impact those who prefer the current FFA format. It does affect us and neither one of us can accurately predict quite how much it will. It could also drastically change the future of the game. Many people don’t want to go down that road and they are just trying to express their opinion.
I play maybe 80% private games too, often because I want to casually grab all the loot that drops for me or I’m not at a high enough level or wearing the right gear or playing the right class to defend myself against the predatory players in this community. In those scenarios, I play private games. Other times, I prefer to play in that predatory environment and feel the rush of trying to succeed under those harsh conditions. I like that choice precisely how it’s always been handled before.
Giving players the choice to exclude a subset of players from their otherwise public game will hurt that community that is being excluded, that’s just a fact of life and a fact of game communities. It does affect them, even if you can’t see it. You can argue that the subset of players is toxic, or that if griefing you is their only joy in this game then they shouldn’t play it anyway but this is literally the game you’re trying to change.
You’re walking into the den of thieves and asking for the option not to be robbed so more types of people can come and enjoy the den. The thieves are not going to like that option and are right to argue that it could no longer truly be the den of thieves they know and love any longer if people had that option. It does affect them, even if you think they are scum.
A long time ago in a negotiation I was involved in, an arbitrator provided her decision and everyone this affected (including me) protested. She said “if everyone is slightly unhappy then I produced the best compromise”. The words have stuck with me.
And I think ploot in private games exclusively (and as a toggle) could achieve that. It would be hard for either side to say it ‘ruins the game’ so to speak.
And here I’d support a change to ‘right click - invite to game’ from a chat channel, over having to have the people on your friends list which I think was the requirement in D2R. To make it easy to recruit plooters to a game, etc.
You are choosing who can join the game due to the password and you change the loot allocation.
I can’t really see any more scenarios where this is useful other than a group of friends prefer using another loot allocation system. If they are all “friends” then i am sure they can share the loot fairly, even without having the option.
Don’t jump on it just yet… Give me some time to think about it. It’s early in the morning for me now 6:35 AM and i didn’t sleep all night.
Your missing the point. I dont do pub runs for gear so it doesn’t matter that Bob has no mf and gets the killing blow. I’m not the one invested in gearing off pub runs like you Ploot crows.
Imo splitting the community is a complete non-issue and always has been.