Endgame vs. levelling
|
Introduction
I’ve been reading articles like this recently, about why the endgame structure is wasteful in MMORPGs, and I think that GGG could learn something from this (although I think they have this figured out given some recent efforts). Also, some things can be said about different problems inherent to PoE, because it has its own wastes. I could say the game has a “midgame”, at least from the point of view of a newbie too, that deserves some consideration. So…the thing with endgames is that you play through a sizable chunk of the game, and then you get to play this thing at the end that is totally different and special (maybe because it’s hard or requires to do a lot of effort to play, etc.) that some people (developers included) start to treat that part of the content as the most important thing. This is worsened by the fact that some people just rush the early content. Why this can be seen as a problem? Well, you have roughly two groups: casuals/altaholics and hardcore players. If you center too much on the endgame part, the early game (story related normally) is lackluster. This translates to reduced player retention (why keep playing the game if it started sucky) and an awful rerolling experience, so it screws up with the first group. Here is the catch: even people that center on the endgame will move on, because there is not such a thing as an infinite replayable game (although with a good design you could have a theoretically very long endgame). It becomes filler. This is a bastardization of the peak-end rule. All’s well end that ends well, I guess, but that’s too simplistic for reality (see above). So…how this applies to ARPGs then? Fun thing is that D2 didn’t have this problem (well not at this scale). The levelling structure went like this: Normal -> Nightmare -> Hell Most of Hell was the endgame (main farm/experience area, alvl approximately equal to 85 most of the time), and then you had some extra bosses for the challenge. Hell wasn’t “something different and special”, it just was a proper difficulty scaling for the higher level gear. Also, there was things like Grush that made the early part easier to skip. Meanwhile, in PoE, you have this: Normal -> Cruel -> Merciless -> Maps So you have to play two and a half difficulties to access the endgame, and even then, it isn’t an access to flat alvl areas to farm, you can keep going up and up. Also, the relationship between difficulty and alvl starts to get fuzzy (some bosses can totally destroy you at low levels, like Tunnel Trap, Atziri, Merciless Malachai and others, while some at higher levels are a cakewalk). So you have something different and special, and now people will complain in a MMORPG way. At least the endgame content partially recycles the rest of the game, saving some waste. Also, running two difficulties and a half just starts the journey to the actual farming areas. The game predisposes you to think the final part as something special and then gates the fuck out of it for a while. To add salt to the wound, D2 just needed to be sold to generate revenue, while PoE thrives only if people get hooked for a while. The three difficulty structure made sense as extra content for those that wanted more in D2, and there wasn’t any incentive to improve it because it wasn’t that annoying. Meanwhile, someone playing PoE, expecting a game to spend a lot of time, would watch the credits (if they were there yet, fuck you), start from that depressing beach again and abandon the game (unless they were reading guides and knew the best is yet to come). It doesn’t make any fucking sense from a retention stand point, it’s alluring like a rat’s corpse. It lacks a hook. You have that akward part between the story and the maps, I could call it a “midgame”, where you strictly repeat some game content, scaled. This makes the things worse. You don’t have to run once the content, you have to run it twice and more, accelerating the burnout. I don’t think I’m the only one that thinks that way (for example: https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1429338). Even those who rush it in a day probably are sick of doing that thousand of times (or you don’t care, feel free to correct me, I’m more of enjoying the journey). That’s not all! Think about the last expansion. It needed a major rebalance of all the content. That means, making some areas lower in level (why?), the old threats are nerfed to keep some semblance of difficulty scaling, some levels are shortened, maps went up with the QQ asociated (you thought you wanted higher level maps…you thought wrong), some areas were unjustly shortened (making the world feel more shallow in the name of preserving the difficulty structure), etc. It’s too much effort (GGG did a nice job with things like the gem vendor and moving support gems early though, that was a great, fun idea), and sounds like a waste to do every time a new act comes. For example, Act 3 was depreciated as a farming point because of the level downgrade in Merciless. I think the same happened with Act 2 before. Do you want to see the same happening to Act 4? PoE is not alone in this, D3:ROS has a similar problema with Grifts and level 70.
Alternatives?
Yet, this is not the only way. Games like Torchlight 2 have mapworks (fun fact: maps are original from Torchlight 1, not PoE), that run parallel to new game +. It has the risk of becoming tiresome, and it brings the question of how to balance it, but it's a good option. From MMORPGs, you have Guild Wars, with its horizontal progression (you grind for different rather than more powerful) where old content doesn’t become obsolete. As a plus, this way feels more like a coherent world. While the former is relatively straightforward, it won’t help a lot with the world areas outside maps (alvl will probably be around 70 even for future expansions, you need to farm chaos). The second option deserves some thought. PoE becomes more horizontal the higher the alvl becomes (for example, new affixes are barely stronger than the previous ones, and the experience difference between tiers diminishes). Again, difficulty and level are not that correlated, sometimes done well(ish), like Atziri (it has good rewards even if she doesn’t give experience) or Malachai (bad rewards for the effort). If low level areas have to remain relevant, improving the rewards is a must (divination cards are a step in the right direction, but hardly sufficient), specially for the bosses (suggestion: make Malachai drop a Core Map if you farm him enough, in the same way Atziri drops fragments for the Alluring Abyss, the same for other bosses with map equivalents, given that they are just as tough; that way farming the world has a lesser oportunity cost). Also, Merciless could be flatter, like Hell was in D2. Dominus, Vaal, Malachai, Piety, etc. shouldn’t be that different in difficulty, so you have more bosses to choose if you wish to farm, with similar alvls and difficulty. It would be great if the difficulty structure is ditched and the midgame is reworked to something more interesting. Rather than compressing the story progression to make it fit normal, recover some of the old act length, if needed put some acts that don't fit in normal with Cruel/Merciless penalties and have a way to scale the whole world with you while you level up towards maps once you end the storyline progression, and also have a (random) quest infrastructure to fill that gap, and to make the world more interesting to farm when you get to maps, like side areas, Uberquests in Median XL mod or bounties in D3:ROS, to expand the world horizontally (fundamental once you get to the point of going to maps). People would farm divination cards and sacrifice fragments without feeling like a hassle, and it would be less of a pyramid scheme. It’d be something like this: Story -> world sandbox -> world sandbox parallel to maps So rather than scaling the story every expansion, GGG should just keep adding, and there would be a structure for that gap between the story and maps. Also, players are a lot more enticed to keep playing once the story is over, and new acts will be scaled properly so players just can play them without akward transitions if they want. Of course, there are more possible structures, this are the two that I thought. For example, there is the question of allowing to skip normal as some proposed in this thread. I think is fine, but the same critique applies. ... There are other aspects of levelling vs endgame that I didn't adress because I don't feel like I'm capable enough for the task, like the levelling meta, and some issues with mana management in the early game. Yet those are important too. ...
Ascendancy Update
The more things change, the more they stay the same. The whole expansion was an interesting experiment in two fronts: horizontal/vertical progression and prolonging leveling in the hopes of make it more rich. The Ascendancy class addition was thought as a way to add more flavor to classes. Thing is, they went against what made things like Keystones more interesting in character building; keystones, ideally, offer power at a cost, so they are neutral, or at least require some thought to make a character more powerful. That's a way of horizontal player progression. Meanwhile, Ascendancy classes offer straight buffs most of the time. The less broken classes offer "on kill" bonuses while the most broken offer permanent buffs like permafortify. In that sense, you cannot completely categorize the addition as horizontal or vertical. It's not necessarily a bad thing (I mean, a buff to build around EV/ES or Dodge is a great thing actually), but probably requires more balance. The power creep is real, some sobering nerfs are needed to not trivialize existing content. The labyrinth and trials were less well received for many reasons (there is a ton of threads about that, so no that interested on talking about that), for this thread is interesting to note that it made leveling long. Now there are reasons to go to Hedge Maze, Catacombs and other areas thanks to trials, thing is that people still want to rush to the endgame, so it's an obstacle in that path annoying them. I particularly don't mind, but I actually enjoy doing all that. For those who not, it's a waste of time. The labyrinth itself asks you (at least at the apropiate level) to pass a somewhat unforgiving difficulty spike, adding to the overall leveling effort. If you enjoy it, it's one of the best improvements on leveling we've seen in a while, else, it's the biggest obstacle to completing a character and playing the endgame. Ignoring whether the labyrinth should be as mandatory (to be exact: optimal, so shut up grammar nazis), there is so much effort people will want to put playing an unfinished character. Honestly, I still favor adding more effort, non linearity, long levels, and stress to leveling, in exchange for not repeating multiple playthroughs. That means, GGG should make effort preserving changes to leveling. As an hybrid endgame/leveling activity, it falls short in both fronts. Probably too much for leveling as thing are currently (three playthroughs) and too little for the endgame (you can kill most things easily, beyond some point, so the only threat left are traps, and given how you can cheese them, it's not a well designed grind as maps themselves...it doesn't help that the rewards after getting the AC points are enchants that are distributed very sparsely). A higher level labyrinth, and/or one with better item drops, with harder to trivialize enemies would be nice, modeled as the Apex of Sacrifice aproximately (low level, still challenging...well, maybe it was in the past, power creep is bananas). In that sense, I still think the same than when I wrote this thread one year ago. People still wonder why GGG hasn't added anything to the endgame, while GGG has added so much stuff to do...while being impossible to put all that stuff only at high levels for economy reasons.
3.0 and Prophecy League, I guess
Ahh...my old, self indulgent armchair videogame designer post.
I love what GGG did with the second part. I don't think it was because of my post, but rather because of the collective whining that they did that. Still, some issues remain; people will see leveling as an obstacle to the endgame because of mechanical differences (and because your build gets together at that point), and while the world is used to good effect in part II, it kind of gets canned at the epilogue. The build part is impossible to solve (although some builds can be made work earlier), some people may still ask for streamlined leveling once the ten acts get old. About the world, thing is that returning to it once you get to maps is akward to say the least. You go there for prophecies and maybe sacrifice fragment farming. Some prophecies will make you go to part I, and the difficulty (and sometime the rewards) make it feel more like filler than something apropiate for the endgame. I say prophecies have a good potential to become a mechanic that bridges both parts (I wonder if this was a deliberate decision by GGG, doing something that changes a lot how you level and that fuzzies the boundaries of endgame and leveling). But for it to work, the difficulty should scale apropiately (the monsters scale up to 70, at least they should be hard even if they don't have greater alvls) and the epilogue should give you access to all the world areas (including those that are exclusive to part I). Maybe the areas should get tougher if there is a prophecy to fulfill there. It's a lot of work though. GGG may just change prophecies to be map only and ignore this completely (and it would be fine, leveling is streamlined). To justify this GGG should keep adding stuff to do to the world, but I'm not sure how much faith they have on that (and it may be better to just keep adding stuff to maps). I'm happy as it is. PS: The pantheon system was an attempt to add some mid to endgame progression, with little power creep, so it's almost horizontal (as it should be). I personally like the system but we got spoiled by stuff like ascendancies that eclipse the whole thing. Shame. ... So, what do you think? Does it matter? How'd you tackle it? Add a Forsaken Masters questline https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2297942 Last edited by NeroNoah on Sep 25, 2017, 6:47:51 PM Last bumped on Sep 24, 2017, 9:30:28 PM
This thread has been automatically archived. Replies are disabled.
| |
|
I see some misunderstaing in your post.
1. d2 had no problem with endgame because it had none lol. 2. If player don't like doing the same thing again and he leave afte beating normal, he will think that the completed game and be happy, if he would stay to maps he would leave be then becase maps are even more repetative than normal-cruel-merciless. GGG need players who like repetative content because they stay and play game and buy MTX points. 3. If someone don't like leveling and want endgame maps he can get to them in 12 hours if he know game well. You search for problems when there is none. "Is there such a thing as an absolute, timeless enemy? There is no such thing, and never has been. And the reason
is that our enemies are human beings like us. They can only be our enemies in relative terms." | |
|
NeroNoah, I am not sure using a game design analysis made for open worlds is appliable to ARPGs.
I don't know if your suggestions are good or not, but the premise seems flawed, Path of exile having no elements of a sandbox. |
|
" of course, as always: the more you rush, the faster you get sick of it... ^^ invited by timer @ 10.12.2011
-- deutsche Community: www.exiled.eu & ts.exiled.eu | |
|
That is something I wish for a long time, most build start to be in a good spot at 75 but by that time , the story is long done (except maybe malachai) and that is something I liked this expansion, doing part of the story with a almost finished/polished build (because end of act 4 is hard)
And in that case you get the feeling your progressing twice as much (the story and your character) and it feel way more rewarding. | |
|
People are thought to consume in this day and age, even if the product is not a consumable.
End-game being the pinnacle of consumption, this is even enforced by GGG as a company. They are depicted as a one-time consumable modified by more consumables. Instead of having utility and being independent in nature. If the end-game was not a consumable, it would be an extension of the core-game instead of a "different game". This is also why end-game in PoE never "nourishes" a player until he can sustain the "ultimate consumable" (being 82 maps currently) Hunger creates a comparison scenario where one thing has a greater nourishing value then the other, instead of providing a context where everything has the same nourishing value.(thus creating diversity without distinction) Lol no clue if that makes sense to you all though :). tl;dr i blame all of you!(and society at proxy) Peace, -Boem- Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
| |
|
Many good points, but too overreaching. GGG has designed THIS game, and you're asking them to go against their entire design strategy. That's not likely to happen. Bliz did it. I have no idea how that worked out for them.
I agree that they need to focus on their main game. Tacking stuff on the end doesn't make for a smooth progression. |
|
" I think D2 had an endgame when the concept didn't exist, and seamlessly integrated to the core game. There is something at the end (at least the Ubers can be considered like that). So that's the reason it doesn't feel like it, and again, GGG could learn from it. Maps can be repetitive, but they are more efficient at hiding that. There is no such a thing as an infinite endgame. It's all about elegant randomization, and GGG has shown some interesting things. The 12 hour things is pointless. Ask yourself: why? This is not a suggestion about levelling only, it's a suggestion about using the act structure for something at the "endgame" so it seamlessly integrates, too. Anyway, feel free to disagree, your opinion is as valuable as mine. I've post this because is a common (although not overly discussed) issue for some. " I'd say sandbox-esque. Path of Exile becomes a lot more free form at higher levels (boss farming, maps, Atziri, player economy, even Hideouts for some), I'm just arguing that it could become that way early. I'm not talking about doing an strict sandbox, just being pragmatic about it. Again, it's a suggestion, I defend your right to disagree to the death. " I have more faith in my fellow players. That being said, yeah, that's what I wanted to say. It's all about retention and using content more effectively. This applies to Boem too. Even if players are addicts, they deserve some respect, and something better. " I'm chaos aligned sometimes, bring the bullshit. " GGG designed this game, but that's not an excuse for avoiding change when it makes sense. It doesn't touch the whole "hardcore, competitive, economy based, online RPG with emphasis in making half a million builds" thing. The error with Blizzard is that they did make an structure for levelling, but they made the content absolutely obsolete with power creep (they didn't design the game horizontally). At least we agree in something, :P ... About themepark vs. sandbox: they have advantages and disadvantages. Themepark is good for guiding the player, and I think it would work best at the beginning of the game, but sandbox brings the inmersive world to the table, and that's better long term. Here is an article about it. Add a Forsaken Masters questline https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2297942 Last edited by NeroNoah on Sep 28, 2015, 11:37:03 AM
| |
" It's not about being addicts, that's irrelevant. It's about being conditioned to desire something unnatural. People are being thought from a young age to consume things that cannot be consumed. Look at the gadgets being produced and the rate at which they are purchased -> replaced. That's a consumption philosophy applied to something that cannot be consumed. The underlying principle is "to sustain the economy we need to fabricate consumption where there is none".
little example
When talking with students that are learning architecture, they are thought to produce and manufacture houses that last roughly 30 years +-, without any apparent reason other then
"it benefits the economy" The same applies here, to sustain the economy a consumption is produced where none is required. ("where none is required" is debatable i am sure, purely speaking from a point of view where the distinction between core-game and end-game comes from) The core game is experienced, the end-game is consumed. I don't judge about good/bad, it has it's functionality to GGG. Peace, -Boem- Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
| |
|
The economy of consumption is not the only way to go. There are a lot of critics for that way of thinking (hyperconsumerism, blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda).
I think there is something better out there. Add a Forsaken Masters questline
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2297942 |
