Mike_W

Yea, just everyone sign up. We don’t have a limit that we are enforcing.

Technically I guess the spots are probably limited by something but I don’t see a way we could ever hit it. You’re in!

I’m not ready to give any information on 1.0 yet at all.

I’m sorry, I can’t provide any more information. We don’t have the information about what will happen yet so I can’t share it. I’m not sure how much more clear we can be.

Here is all the concrete information at this time:

0.9 will have the item gifting system as previewed in the last 2 multiplayer events.

1.0 will have a yet unknown system.

And that’s exactly what gifting in 0.9 really is, an experiment. I’ve had many people report that their opinion of gifting only has changed (both ways) since playing with it in the preview events. It’s really hard to give feedback on a system you haven’t played with.

Having said that, it’s not about wanting to avoid the currency and trading elements but rather enable the discovery and hunting elements. In a magical land of gumdrops and jellybeans, if both could coexist in a system where people can trade if they want to but not need to if they don’t (and still play together), that would be pretty cool too. Not saying this is even possible or that we will ever try to do it.

We have many goals for these systems and we have to prioritize and design to hit as many as we can.

Short version tonight.

I have a feeling that some information has gone through a game of telephone and been slightly altered.

We recently announced that the 0.9 patch would have gifting only. We talked a lot about our priorities for finding loot out in the game as a fun and viable way to play. This unfortunately got repeated as “no trade” quite a lot. The 0.9 gifting announcement post has more detailed info on 0.9.

Details on what the game will launch with are not available yet. It is still being designed. The survey was one method of feedback we are using. I can’t share the results of the survey.

Kinda, it was more about answering individual specific questions about trade. Like, if we did x, how would people feel about that. The preface to the survey was really important to read and I have a feeling that it was a little too long so quite a few just skipped it.

I think it was easy to fall into the trap of trying to figure out trade plans from the questions being asked. Like, we want to do x, so let’s see how people feel about that. It was really about collecting broad data about people’s feelings towards trade so we could design a system that would be more appropriate.

Edit:
I also want to add that it wasn’t about trying to find “the line” for how far anti-trade people would be willing to bend.

We talked a bit about it on stream on Friday. Andrew Tilley posted a transcription, with links, today that you can read if you want more info too.

No. We have clearly stated that these are two different splits. Please stop conflating the two.

I would really like to stress again that the survey is not attempting to discover if people want trade or not.

No, it selects the best server for the party lead.

Sorry psychodrive but you’ll have to eat that popcorn without the show.

I’m going to go ahead and say that the GGG and PoE business practices/acquisition history is off topic. I know it’s related to LE but it is a real stretch to say that it has anything to do with the trade survey.

If you would like to discuss another topic, please make another thread in the appropriate section.

I think in a hypothetical scenario, it would be pretty awesome if people who wanted trade and those who don’t, could literally do monoliths together in a party and both enjoy the experience. I’m not saying it’s possible or going to happen, that would just be the dream right?

I feel like I’m struggling a bit to communicate accurately.

I think the disagreement comes from that the objective isn’t already gone. We aren’t at 1.0 yet. The game isn’t released. I know there is a lot of speculation going on but it’s not accurate.

I’m happy that you are open to what is still coming.

Sorry, I might not have been clear. We are well aware that the community has split views on trading. That’s not ideal either but we aren’t striving to change people’s minds on if they want trade or not.

The split which we are attempting to avoid with the eventual version that arrives with 1.0 would not functionally split the community in play opportunities. So people who want trade or not can still play together and enjoy themselves.

This is “this split” which gets referenced by EHG and what Llama was discussing.

Also, I know you’re frustrated but please try to be respectful.

Just going to clear up a point that seems to be going nowhere, the community split that is hopefully to be avoided refers to the play environment split (e.g. another HC/SC style split), not the philosophical split on the forums. Llama is right on this one.

Yea, that’s what I was talking about in the next line after that. Here:

This was an attempt to articulate

a little differently that might help understand it a bit better.

Not what I was going for but yea that hits a lot of those notes.

I’m really trying to understand and summarize sentiments around trading from various points of view with more specific and accurate wording.

I’m wondering how this sounds to people that are generally wanting to have trade.

Major problems with not having trade:
No finite progression track that you can slowly but surely work towards completing to receive a specific item.
Finding a rare but not useful to you item feels bad because you can’t do anything with it.

This is where you need to agree on terminology first before you can have a constructive conversation. Defining if ravenous void is the same item as ravenous void 4LP or not is a key piece in this distinction.

Personally I feel that they are the same item but not everyone agrees with me.