I am lucky, therefore game is fine

I'm in middle of saving* 1500 fusings for vorici, which is double the fun since you are at 700-800 because you have also fight your inner gambler ("it takes 600 fus in average""It will get like 300fus tops, for sure").
naaah, I'm pretty casual, but I saw enough to get the half I lack and keep it safe.


That's about luck. And exiles and poe being fine.


*saving stands politely for griding my ass off on maps tbh



I couldn't stand this dumb thread anymore, srsly OP, I'm butthurted a little

"

Jojas wrote:

"

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.

Then simply calling PoE a diablo-clone is the solution to the whole argument and John can start finnally judging it as a diablo-clone instead of a Zelda-clone? Or is there an argument that PoE is a diablo-clone as well (both games made from same guy as well amazingly enough)?

Still i would love him to post whats exactly his request in PoE terms for example:
"i want one single ledge run to give me shav's to run my build. Then i expect piety which is harder than ledge to drop me a mjolner. Then i want malachai which is harder than both to drop me Voll's Devotion. Finally Atziri should drop headhunter 1/1 since its the hardest"

"

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.

Diablo 2. Or does the Hellfire Torch somehow not count?

Also, you must have absolutely hated Median XL, which was designed entirely around progressing through bosses with loot tables. But keep ranting about how loot tables can't work in an aRPG, even though they were the foundation of one of the best game mods of all time, whose creator contributed to PoE, which, amusingly enough, also has a boss (Atziri) with a loot table.

You'll probably retort that Atziri's drops aren't BiS, which only highlights the strawman that founds your argument. No one's asking for guaranteed BiS drops; some of us just want a better correlation between risk/difficulty and reward. That doesn't mean guaranteeing anything; it just means that hard encounters like Eater of Souls should incentivize players more than trivial ones like Voll so that players will prefer the former.

"

Jojas wrote:

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.

PoE is the same, you know. It's just that the core mechanics are better, especially build diversity, and there's no AH to hyper-accelerate the damage caused by an unrestricted trade system. But an AH isn't a magical game-destroying precipice; it's just the slipperiest of unrestricted trade slopes.

"

Charanjaydemyr wrote:

I am fine, therefore game is lucky.

I see what you did there :D

"

Elendarulianreo wrote:

Diablo 2. Or does the Hellfire Torch somehow not count?

Also, you must have absolutely hated Median XL, which was designed entirely around progressing through bosses with loot tables. But keep ranting about how loot tables can't work in an aRPG, even though they were the foundation of one of the best game mods of all time, whose creator contributed to PoE, which, amusingly enough, also has a boss (Atziri) with a loot table.

You'll probably retort that Atziri's drops aren't BiS, which only highlights the strawman that founds your argument. No one's asking for guaranteed BiS drops; some of us just want a better correlation between risk/difficulty and reward. That doesn't mean guaranteeing anything; it just means that hard encounters like Eater of Souls should incentivize players more than trivial ones like Voll so that players will prefer the former.

"

Jojas wrote:

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.

PoE is the same, you know. It's just that the core mechanics are better, especially build diversity, and there's no AH to hyper-accelerate the damage caused by an unrestricted trade system. But an AH isn't a magical game-destroying precipice; it's just the slipperiest of unrestricted trade slopes.

Now with that i completely agree. Although PoE sort of already does that with iLvL and better item bases as you move on i agree that the feeling of progress is nowhere to be found since the incentive between doing lvl75 maps and lvl82s is minimum other than exp.

But how is that related with RNG/luck and guaranteed drops?

Then again if you made the feeling of progress too strong then like i said there would be no reason to farm lower lvl places which would make ppl just rush to get to lvl75 for example maps like the do with d3 lvl1-70 (sort of already happens but i did enjoy the low lvl maps and piety runs at least on my first char on each league)

"

RockGod wrote:

...

(lets call them the less fortunate)

...

oh please let's not

"

Boatsniper wrote:

I have a video for you people:

https://youtu.be/tWtvrPTbQ_c

The strangest thing is that the POEdevs seem to be trying to NOT make a skinner-boxian game but the players insist on wanting it be one. The map situation is a testament to this, with players insisting they be kept in the box with the doors barred.

"

Elendarulianreo wrote:

You'll probably retort that Atziri's drops aren't BiS, which only highlights the strawman that founds your argument. No one's asking for guaranteed BiS drops; some of us just want a better correlation between risk/difficulty and reward. That doesn't mean guaranteeing anything; it just means that hard encounters like Eater of Souls should incentivize players more than trivial ones like Voll so that players will prefer the former.

That makes absolutely no sense.

There exists builds which can afk and right click, alt-tab and easily kill Eater of Souls. You must have seen them?

Why the fuck would that reward good drops?

AGAIN I REPEAT:
Nothing in this game is challenging enough that deserves extra loot. T1 Uniques might as well drop out of barrels.

this is getting more than a bit off topic, but I'll just comment on a couple posts:

"

Chundadragon wrote:

There exists builds which can afk and right click, alt-tab and easily kill Eater of Souls. You must have seen them?

I have.
but truth be told the gear they rock is far above anything a risk/reward progression system can grant, because super-trade.
simply put: when you carve Eater Of Souls' heart out with a Loath Bane and some crazy gear, each individual piece of which is exponentially better than anything biased RNG can drop in such an ultimate-end-game fight - you have already won the game long before the fight started, and are now just celebrating your victory by taking down a boss you care little about.
a boss you may as well AFK while 99.99999999% of the other players are scared to even take on solo.

that, or you came up with an absolutely ridiculously overpowered build using the same grade of gear, another player would have around that time in a risk/reward progression system with an actually healthy dose of RNG, where you claw your way up the ladder of game and end-game content.
in which case congratulations, phenomenal skill and well played.
you deserve to crave Eater Of Souls' heart out. enjoy!

in any case, when you reach such an ultimate level of 1% among 1% status, you may as well re-roll a new char or ask GGG to create some form of endless "select-few-elite" content, similar to what "New Game + 5" in Torchlight 2 is, for example.
in Elite Difficulty. in Hardcore. taking on Tarroch's Tomb... :P
(...heck I beat TL2 regular content in Hardcore Elite which already puts me at something like top 15% stupid/insane, and am a fan of the absolutely brutal Median XL D2 mod - and the above quite literally makes my bones quake...)

"

Mitsaras wrote:

But how is that related with RNG/luck and guaranteed drops?

you were just talking about how you understood the point, and even mentioned it a few lines before this statement - and you still can't see the connection?

"guaranteed" is equally as bad as "all in the hands of unbiased RNG", in terms of risk/reward.
the secret sauce is balance. equilibrium. using RNG wisely, while at the same time providing the player a sense of progression, reward per skill and daring, and encouragement to dare more - without making it rain so ridiculously he'll become Chunda after one Brutus fight.

every single game you or I can bring here as an example, tries to find that balance.
PoE does not. PoE basically says "fuck you, now go trade", unless you are feeling extremely lucky and have a history of taking jackpots.
my entire point is, it really should.

"

I have.
but truth be told the gear they rock is far above anything a risk/reward progression system can grant, because super-trade.
simply put: when you carve Eater Of Souls' heart out with a Loath Bane and some crazy gear, each individual piece of which is exponentially better than anything biased RNG can drop in such an ultimate-end-game fight - you have already won the game long before the fight started, and are now just celebrating your victory by taking down a boss you care little about.
a boss you may as well AFK while 99.99999999% of the other players are scared to even take on solo.

that, or you came up with an absolutely ridiculously overpowered build using the same grade of gear, another player would have around that time in a risk/reward progression system with an actually healthy dose of RNG, where you claw your way up the ladder of game and end-game content.
in which case congratulations, phenomenal skill and well played.
you deserve to crave Eater Of Souls' heart out. enjoy!

in any case, when you reach such an ultimate level of 1% among 1% status, you may as well re-roll a new char or ask GGG to create some form of endless "select-few-elite" content, similar to what "New Game + 5" in Torchlight 2 is, for example.

There's some sort of misconception keys you have that every build equally tackles stuff. Build A can do content drastically easier then content B, build C might be mediocre because of statistical reasons and thus on.

For "risk vs reward" to work you have to hand design for the risk to be present for everyone, when I can steamroll most of the game with optimized cheap builds AND get better loot because I'll be able to farm XYZ over XYZ build much faster. Almost everyone would play the better optimized builds.

For example if I was playing an elemental hit, the "risk" of a boss is many times greater then a flame totem build which would off-screen the monster within a few seconds with 0 risk to himself.

I get an reward that I "feel like I deserve", totem guy gets free loot for the exact same amount of gear (prob even less), skill used and time invested. Nobody would play previous builds, it would be worse then the fact that you aren't playing a popular/fotm build. It's also the fact you are poorer because it takes you much longer to do everything, you get less loot because you can't handle higher risk and you would want to trade up from people with better/higher tier builds because they have more loot.

You didn't "fix" risk vs reward in terms of rewarding casual players, you just gave players who where hardcore about the game more loot for nothing in return.

Which is why nobody gets every time single you say "risk vs reward." You never ask "in conjunction/comparison to what." What is the baseline, what is it going to be compared too, what is the appropriate amount, how do we factor everything above.

Is you expect GGG is literally just come out with everything themselves which would prob be out of your vision anyway your really wasting your time.

The only fair solution to above is just "more loot for everyone because this boss is harder.", which isn't "risk vs reward." It is more loot, the boss isn't any harder nor did you risk anymore (Like you risk anything really in an arpg but ignoring that) Did 4x drop rate to T1 actually effect anyone else not pounding out high tier maps at lighting speeds or MFers? No not really to be honest, and that wasn't risk vs reward either.