So, you can at least accept that you don’t own the right to define what’s rare in this instance - and you accept that there are more ways than one to define what’s rare?
Great, then maybe you shouldn’t have told me that there’s only one definition of rare - and you get to decide what it is.
That’s why I got “snotty” as you call it, because it was an unreasonable position.
Your post basically “told me” that it was rare because you think it’s rare. But you forgot to mention that it’s just how you think of something that’s rare.
The definition is useless, because it simply means degrees of the uncommon - and that’s completely dependant on context. An item might have an extremely rare drop rate in an individual game - but when the AH is part of the game, then the drop rate is suddenly multiplied by all the people playing and sharing. At least, I think that’s a very CLEAR and reasonable way to look at rarity.
And it still doesn’t change the fact that rare is rare, or that the drop rates are such that they can be termed “rare drops” and that we’ll still see 50+ in the first week. In fact, that’s exactly what we should expect to see in the first week for one-in-a-million drop rate items for which we get hundreds of millions of chances to roll for.
Yes, it does change it - because the AH is now part of the game - and is what I would call part of the “global drop rate” - so in my mind, legendaries are anything BUT rare.
Are you sure there aren’t items that will fit this criteria already? I don’t know, but D2 had some set/unique drop rates that were vastly lower than others. I played in a clan that had thousands of active players over the course of years, so there were probably a dozen or two people who could break out any of the extra-high-level class sets at any given time. The sets will still rare drops, but that’s what thousands of people playing for years, and sharing like mad, will do for you.
I can only go by what Blizzard have been saying - and they’ve been saying they want Rares to be the best items - with ideal stats. They haven’t gone into detail about drop rates - but given the variety of legendaries available - and the nature of them (Like Bulkathos Wedding Ring, which was quite rare in D2 and quite powerful). Same for stuff like Immortal King’s Whatever - and others.
If it turns out that they’ve hidden som super powerful legendaries that step outside the power boundaries they’ve talked about, then I’ll be very happy indeed.
Look, I love to kick Blizzard in the shins more than most people, and even I wouldn’t say they haven’t thought it through. The reality of the situation is they were heading out into the great unknown. They couldn’t anticipate everything and were probably aware of that. But they were almost certainly aware that 1 in a million times millions of chances = 50 Lancelot’s Wretched Punchy Knuckle Mace for sale in the AH a week in (just under). They certainly didn’t know for sure how people would react to it. Like I said, it was heading out into the unknown.
No, and I’m not saying they committed an unforgivable sin - I’m saying I think they should adjust drop rates according to region-wide active accounts, based on stuff like average playtime and average progression. Something that’s a bit advanced, true, but I think it’s vital for the game to stay interesting.
So, no, I don’t think they thought it through - but I’m not claiming I would have done that if I were them. I’m just seeing something bad for the design, in my opinion, and speaking about what I think could be done. That’s all, really.
Well, nobody really has any idea how much they are worth. It’s too early after release for us to really guess, and that’s absolutely part of the problem. But they don’t just get to be worth millions because you want them too. Invariably, some of them will be worth more than others, and it’s certainly possible they will all sell for millions eventually. I’ve seen some selling for millions (and it appeared all copies were selling for minions at the time, but that information is certainly out of date now, especially since at least some people are starting to realize that, shit, nobody wants to buy these when they can pay less for superior rares).
I have no expectations they will be worth what I want them to, but I still want them to be worth that.
The price of uniques today will not be the price in months. The supply of uniques, the amount of gold available, the relative value of substitutes will all affect the prices as we go. As will the # of people playing around the level-range certain uniques/sets fall in. There will be a tug-of-war
Agreed, and legendaries will be of lower value than decent rares, as far as I can see. If, as I said, they’ve hidden strong legendaries then I’ll be both wrong AND happy.
You can keep repeating this if you like, but it won’t make it true.
Same is true for you, actually.
I responded to you in a perfectly reasonable fashion and you got snotty, so yes that makes you a useless asshole. The defensiveness does not.
If you think I’m an asshole for responding to an unfair claim on the truth, then that’s ok. You speak as you think is right. We’ll also pretend you didn’t have the same dislike for me on OO and spoke to me in the same way. That’s ok, maybe I deserve it, right?
No, that doesn’t make me look correct. I simply did it because I have a low tolerance for this sort of uselessness. I might even be called famous for it, for relative values of “famous”.
Yeah, it’s impressive stuff to be sure. If you feel you are in the right and I’m in the wrong - then low tolerance is somewhat useful. I personally don’t like to resort to curse words and stuff like that, because I find it disrupts all chances of fruitful debate. Which is what I’m actually after - or at the very least a measure of understanding - which is hard to get when people are biased against you from the past.
But whatever, I can carry a conversation with people like you - as long as it remains interesting.
Drops can be rare and we can still see 50+, for reasons I have laid out. And I’m perfectly certain Blizzard both understands this, and isn’t entirely sure what direction things will go in. Which is understandable.
If the AH wasn’t part of the game, true. But it IS a central part of the game - and that means that what used to be rare - ISN’T. But that’s my take on it.
I don’t expect you to agree, but rather to understand how it hurts the game.
At the very least, you seem to understand how it can be a reasonable position to think it hurts the game - and maybe your original post could have been useful if you focused on explaining your own position - instead of trying to make me objectively wrong in my definition of rare. It reeks of being a “useless biased person” - so it kinda works both ways.
Are you generally surprised when people win the lottery? Certainly the occurence of someone winning the lottery is not rare; I bet there are dozens of prizes given out in the US at the 6 figure level and above every year. Good luck playing it, though. Mathematically you have roughly a zero% chance of winning. But someone will win eventually. These things are both true, and it’s rare to win the lottery yet we get many winners.
I doubt the lottery would exist if the supposedly grand prizes were both trivial in actual value and such that anyone could get them at any point in time, if they’d spent a few weeks saving for them. Replacing money with a hypothetical prize.
I could do that, yes. And what a weird thing to say. The fact that we agree or disagree is surely the least interesthing aspect of the discussion.
It’s not interesting in and of itself, I agree. But it’s interesting if you disagree, because then we have something to debate - and it’s interesting if you agree - because then we don’t have to exchange. Whether you like me or not, is of very little use to anyone.
