I am lucky, therefore game is fine

"

Vaux wrote:

Sure, I can see the difference. I can also see a passive aggressive way of approaching a topic - why would you go through the trouble of typing out a forum post to simply say: 'This makes me mad. Plz stop thx.'

ok so... writing a few extra lines explaining why it makes me mad, and then saying "it makes me mad. please stop" - is somehow perceived by you as being passive aggressive, compared to just saying "it makes me mad. please stop"?
not sure I follow your logic, but yeah if you say I'm being passive aggressive then I probably am.
(notice how the above was indeed passive aggressive, because you're way past the point of "starting to piss me off").

"

Vaux wrote:

Name me one multiplayer ARPG that had any longevity where you had guaranteed BiS drops behind hard encounters. No, games like Baldur's Gate are not considered even remotely in the same category as PoE or D2.

1) "multiplayer ARPG"?. you really need to define that. note many, many ARPGs have a multiplayer mode.
similarly for "had longevity". for who? heck I'm still playing some games you probably never heard of.

2) guaranteed BiS drops? yeah now I'm 100% certain you did not understand my point about risk/reward. my question still stands: are you willing to listen?

P.S: I believe a good answer to the refined question "name one ARPG which had risk/reward", is "all of them". and they had RNG too.

oh and Baldur's Gate is a fkn classic.

"

Vaux wrote:

You know stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason...right? It's funny, somewhat rude, maybe mean...whatever. But they're stereotypes because they're true, 95% of the time. And I was thinking more Millennials than Gen X for the instant gratification. Are you really refuting this and making me seem unreasonable because I didn't cite hard statistics or examples? Like...is that really necessary? Go take a stroll through a mall and you'll be supplied with enough examples to fill a book with.

you can't even differentiate between someone born in the 60s and 70s, to someone born in the 80s and early 90s, to someone born around 2000 and later.
and yet you insist on putting labels on all of the above and calling it a "fact".

we're done even discussing this bullshit.

"

Vaux wrote:

Uh, you totally missed the point of my post, it had nothing to do with D3 progression - you might want to read the thread to catch up :P

You did in fact use D3 as reference to progression and the reference you supply is misleading.When you use a outside source for reference in discussion you have to accept that the outside source that is referenced will also now be discussed.

"

Vaux wrote:

Even D3 on release, which was considered near IMPOSSIBLE to progress passed the the first act in the hardest difficulty by many due to the encounters being so damn hard, there were people farming the final boss of the game within days. They literally had to completely overhaul the game within the first year because so many people were up in arms about how difficult it was - yet so many had the game on complete farm, myself included.

So now everyone is just getting guaranteed BiS drops over and over again, is infinitely wealthy and 100% of the progression in the game is gone. Game dies.

I'm just pointing out that what you say is "gone" is still there,just not where you'd like it to be.

Everybody is not swimming in guaranteed BIS items.

Wealth as an economic solution is a moot point as the game does not cater for "trade to win" for lack of a better term.I'm up to 70 million gold plus materials per roll on one particular item for one character alone..... and then there's my other 11 characters standing in line ... I'm hardly wealthy even in my own little economic bubble.

Progression in the game is well and alive,just not so much in character development.

That is all,not arguing or refuting anything else,just those tidbits for fairness so it's not misleading.

"

johnKeys wrote:

P.S: I believe a good answer to the refined question "name one ARPG which had risk/reward", is "all of them". and they had RNG too.

Now slowly you are making sense at least to me. Im still not sure what is the point of this thread. What you wanted to do/achieve and you werent able to. And i agree the L2P comments are dumb but sometimes they hold some truth since you might lack some information that ruin your game experience.

Yes i fully agree that higher bosses/maps should drop better than lower ones but that sort of applies on POE with iLVL of items. Could it be better? Sure but there is always the risk of lower map farming would be pointless if the extend of risk/reward is too big.

Let's face it, I said this too many times already, no such thing as risk/reward in this game because there is no such thing as risk.

Aside from doing Uber Atziri on day 2 of a new SC league or competing on HC ladder, nothing in this game takes any real amount of skill to accomplish. Hard rolled map? Ho Ho Ho let me bash my face against my xp bar - OK I GET SHAVS NOW YEAH PLIS OMG GGGG SHIIETTT GAME

Even 8/8 is being dumbed down, it used to be difficult now I had 2 weeks vacation and I decided to slam my face on my keyboard in trade chat and boom got it.

Endgame balance is a fucking joke, mapping is huge fuckfust, roll dice to get one-shot for 10k damage. Ty <3

"

ok so... writing a few extra lines explaining why it makes me mad, and then saying "it makes me mad. please stop" - is somehow perceived by you as being passive aggressive, compared to just saying "it makes me mad. please stop"?
not sure I follow your logic, but yeah if you say I'm being passive aggressive then I probably am.
(notice how the above was indeed passive aggressive, because you're way past the point of "starting to piss me off").

No, you making this thread at all is a passive aggressive way of bitching and moaning about RNG and how game isn't fine blah blah blah. You're trying to pass it off as a thread about people that present the 'dirtbag, elitist argument of my drops are fine = game is fine,' but we all know what it really is.

"

1) "multiplayer ARPG"?. you really need to define that. note many, many ARPGs have a multiplayer mode.
similarly for "had longevity". for who? heck I'm still playing some games you probably never heard of.

2) guaranteed BiS drops? yeah now I'm 100% certain you did not understand my point about risk/reward. my question still stands: are you willing to listen?

P.S: I believe a good answer to the refined question "name one ARPG which had risk/reward", is "all of them". and they had RNG too.

oh and Baldur's Gate is a fkn classic.

Yes, a multiplayer ARPG that involves playing with other people, competing against other players, an economy, etc... Longevity as in companies continuing to generate revenue from them. IE Diablo 2 was a mainstream ARPG for 12+ years and generated revenue via multiple expansions, patches, etc..

Yes, Baldur's Gate is a fantastic game and a classic. No, it doesn't come close to the same type of game as a Diablo 2, Titan Quest or PoE even though it is still considered a 'hack and slash,' action RPG.

"

you can't even differentiate between someone born in the 60s and 70s, to someone born in the 80s and early 90s, to someone born around 2000 and later.
and yet you insist on putting labels on all of the above and calling it a "fact".

we're done even discussing this bullshit.

Maybe you misunderstood? I wasn't lumping all of those generations together, I meant Millennials specifically, NOT gen x.

And yes, I can very easily label Millennials as the instant gratification generation. It would be like saying you can't label baby boomers as the suburban housewife generation. Did every baby boomer move into the suburbs and have a stay-at-home mom? Hell no, but look at any resource discussing baby boomers and that is embedded in the description of the generation, as fact.

"

Let's face it, I said this too many times already, no such thing as risk/reward in this game because there is no such thing as risk.

Aside from doing Uber Atziri on day 2 of a new SC league or competing on HC ladder, nothing in this game takes any real amount of skill to accomplish. Hard rolled map? Ho Ho Ho let me bash my face against my xp bar - OK I GET SHAVS NOW YEAH PLIS OMG GGGG SHIIETTT GAME

Even 8/8 is being dumbed down, it used to be difficult now I had 2 weeks vacation and I decided to slam my face on my keyboard in trade chat and boom got it.

Endgame balance is a fucking joke, mapping is huge fuckfust, roll dice to get one-shot for 10k damage. Ty <3

EXACTLY. There is no way of making an encounter difficult enough to put guaranteed good drops behind it. Again, it goes on farm 1 day after release, people become infinitely wealthy, there is absolutely no progression left in the game = people stop playing.

Seriously John, if you want guaranteed loot tables behind encounters, stick to single player games or MMOs, it has NO place in ARPGs.

"

Vaux wrote:

Yes, a multiplayer ARPG that involves playing with other people, competing against other players, an economy, etc... Longevity as in companies continuing to generate revenue from them. IE Diablo 2 was a mainstream ARPG for 12+ years and generated revenue via multiple expansions, patches, etc..

Yes, Baldur's Gate is a fantastic game and a classic. No, it doesn't come close to the same type of game as a Diablo 2, Titan Quest or PoE even though it is still considered a 'hack and slash,' action RPG.

Someone already mentioned multiplayer ARPG's in this thread, and when asked to name one he couldn't. I can't. Can anyone? You?

Diablo 3 was designed as one, and now it's anything but. Diablo 2 wasn't even designed as one.

PoE is the only multiplayer ARPG in existence - multiplayer as in: drops, progress and difficulty are balanced around an economy, and the risk-reward ratio drastically shifts towards rewards in group play, which is also much cheaper.

No-one has ever tried a game like this. Diablo 3 did it - with shit drops, thinking people can buy what they need in the AH, and they failed miserably. And that's it. PoE is one of a kind.

"

Jojas wrote:

"

Vaux wrote:

Yes, a multiplayer ARPG that involves playing with other people, competing against other players, an economy, etc... Longevity as in companies continuing to generate revenue from them. IE Diablo 2 was a mainstream ARPG for 12+ years and generated revenue via multiple expansions, patches, etc..

Yes, Baldur's Gate is a fantastic game and a classic. No, it doesn't come close to the same type of game as a Diablo 2, Titan Quest or PoE even though it is still considered a 'hack and slash,' action RPG.

Someone already mentioned multiplayer ARPG's in this thread, and when asked to name one he couldn't. I can't. Can anyone? You?

Diablo 3 was designed as one, and now it's anything but. Diablo 2 wasn't even designed as one.

PoE is the only multiplayer ARPG in existence - multiplayer as in: drops, progress and difficulty are balanced around an economy, and the risk-reward ratio drastically shifts towards rewards in group play, which is also much cheaper.

No-one has ever tried a game like this. Diablo 3 did it - with shit drops, thinking people can buy what they need in the AH, and they failed miserably. And that's it. PoE is one of a kind.

Not sure what in the world you're talking about. Diablo 2 was absolutely designed as an ARPG, what do you think defines the genre?

Diablo 3 was great at release - it was actually challenging and fun to play. If they just removed the AH but didn't make it into a single player game by removing all interaction with other players other than co-op it would be fantastic... unfortunately it's anything but.

"

Vaux wrote:

Not sure what in the world you're talking about. Diablo 2 was absolutely designed as an ARPG, what do you think defines the genre?

Diablo 3 was great at release - it was actually challenging and fun to play. If they just removed the AH but didn't make it into a single player game by removing all interaction with other players other than co-op it would be fantastic... unfortunately it's anything but.

D2 does not define the genre. it's one of the best games (ever) in the genre, in my opinion.
same goes for Diablo which was a masterpiece, and was a lot more innovative - but "defines the genre"? no.

read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_role-playing_game#Early_1980s

or pre-Diablo 90s if you want to know about point&click ARPGs with an isometric perspective.

D3? it was BS at release. what are you talking about? hell, the only good thing about D3 at release, is it opened the door for other great games like the Torchlight series and yes Path Of Exile.

"

johnKeys wrote:

D2 does not define the genre. it's one of the best games (ever) in the genre, in my opinion.
same goes for Diablo which was a masterpiece, and was a lot more innovative - but "defines the genre"? no.

read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_role-playing_game#Early_1980s

or pre-Diablo 90s if you want to know about point&click ARPGs with an isometric perspective.

D3? it was BS at release. what are you talking about? hell, the only good thing about D3 at release, is it opened the door for other great games like the Torchlight series and yes Path Of Exile.

You keep ignoring the fact that PoE is an online game but are you seriously comparing PoE with games like Zelda which are Arpg's according to your URL?

Why dont you compare PoE with "The Settlers" game as well? Both are point and click. Both are isometric. On Settlers you can build houses, on PoE you can build hideouts. They sound the same to me.

This game is just not for you. Its simple as that.

[Edited by support]

"

Vaux wrote:

Not sure what in the world you're talking about. Diablo 2 was absolutely designed as an ARPG, what do you think defines the genre?

Diablo 3 was great at release - it was actually challenging and fun to play. If they just removed the AH but didn't make it into a single player game by removing all interaction with other players other than co-op it would be fantastic... unfortunately it's anything but.

I'm talking about multiplayer ARPG's. In my post. Where I repeatedly mention the word "multiplayer", and give a definition of it (the word "multiplayer"), replying to your post where you talked about multiplayer ARPG's, and where you gave a slightly different definition of it (the word "multiplayer").

Just to be sure: When I said "Diablo 2 wasn't designed as one.", I was referring to the "multiplayer" bit - not the ARPG bit - I mentioned in my first paragraph and you in your quote.

As John says below, Diablo 2 did not define the genre ARPG. Calling games like Diablo ARPG's is actually a new-gen thing. In the 80's and early 90's there were RPG's and ARPG's, and the defining difference between the two was that the former were turn-based and the latter were action-y. That's all. After Diablo and Diablo 2 became huge successes, games that were similar were called Diablo clones. And although people were not happy with that term, it stuck.
The shift to as we have it today came after the demise of turn-based and RTwP RPG's. Today what once would have been called ARPG's are called RPG's. And what once were Diablo clones are ARPG's.