Endgame vs. levelling

"

NeroNoah wrote:

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.

=) no disagreement from me. Just providing a stance i think is relevant.

One could argue it's not what GGG wants to do(maybe?) but it's what people demand of them.

Peace,

-Boem-

*shrugs*

I think is just GGG tapping into relatively unknown territory. Even if the game has questionable designs, it tries to have something meaningful and satisfying.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

I think D2 had an endgame when the concept didn't exist, and seamlessly integrated to the core game.

To me, the hell difficulty in D2 cant really be considered as 'endgame' - Blizz' just offered a three-times repeated regular/storyline content, with the 'effect' that its 3rd stage was considered as real hard for the most chars & builds by its "core design feature": offering really hard to handle content/monsters with multiple immunities. This does neither makes these encounters fair, nor a 'classic' endgame.

An endgame IMHO is just a part of the game that extends the main line of the story to offer activity and char progress beyond the classical 'final showdown' (Diablo and later Baal in D2, now Malachai in POE). The point where it becomes a bit complicated, is that in POE that activity-beyond-the-maingame, formerly known as maps, NOW lies partially parallel to the final areas of the core game, at least levelwise. But this was just an implementation 'against' maps: to offer possibilities for late-progress within the core, without the need of finding/trading consumable maps for further tasks...

other facts around the comparision:
in classic D2, the final boss was a real threat, in all difficulties (but at most in normal where the gap between the surroundings was hightest). The later added 5th area offered some breathtaking after Diablo (for most chars?). The expansion also showed a general rebalance and shifting of the areas like we have with POE, ahd there's no real solution to prevent it (no, its no option to just scale up monster&char level - and all related numbers - to implement additions)

But finally, I agree on the point that the transition from one difficulty to the next was different than in POE; D2 'offered' there a wall (especially through the above mentioned monster resists and immunities that decrease the char's damage), which is here in POE more present on late stages and bossfights within a given diff. I would both variants NOT consider steady for real.

Well, I'd say D2 had a "proto-endgame". You had a destination where the main farming would take place and extra activities. It's subjective. There are some early elements of that for sure. Mods like Median XL make it more clear, even if they are not inspired by MMORPGs at all.

The rebalance may be unavoidable, but right now, the difficulty structure is too rigid. I think GGG could be best served saving some effort at that (for example, not rebalancing Normal difficulty every time to make Cruel and Merciless fit). The world deserves some work, specially to be the parallel endgame GGG desires it to be.

I think Malachai is a threat the same way Baal was, or even worse.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

Does this then tie into my complicated attempt at making Mapping part of the core game by way of Dialla teaching the Exile how to access the Reverie Device with the strict intention of growing strong in the dreams to face Malachai?

The answer is a definitive maybe. As I wrote, bringing maps to early/mid game is a way to do it, but you'd still have the problem of maps making the world obsolete (and that's a waste).

The important part is seamless integration, whatever that implies.

I don't think it pulled it off that well, I just pointed out it did happen. You'd still have to rush some areas once you play maps. Unless you have some way to make some progress from maps, it's impossible to do. I don't know what to do about the story part, maybe side step it in the next walkthroughs (or add things to make it more non linear, explorable).

That being said, Vaslan's mysterious map scrolls were awesome and I wish GGG learned from them. And playing harder difficulties make them more handy (I started on hard, by the way).

My altar concept is the blend between maps and the core game, with the emphasis being on player-based customization of pre-mapping content.

Do i need to write it down again, or have you already read it somewhere else?

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

My altar concept is the blend between maps and the core game, with the emphasis being on player-based customization of pre-mapping content.

Do i need to write it down again, or have you already read it somewhere else?

Peace,

-Boem-

I've read it, but I can't remember. Link me your thread if you wish. That being said, I prefer less gamey ways to approach the problem if possible (the world/sandbox), but most proposed systems have some merit.

It's simple.

All exiles have an altar with 5 slots in it.

Exiles can now collect "skulls" of rare and unique mobs.(low % chance to drop collectible)

Every skull has a property that manipulates the game. (like map modifiers/league modifiers)

Up to 5 skulls can be placed in the altar in town, at which point the next instances you create are modified by the modifiers.

This allows players to customize their play-through of the core content at will if so desired, without being intrusive to players that prefer to play an unmodified game. It also smoothens out the jump from core content to maps.

Skulls could be traded i imagine.

Altars have absolutely no impact on maps or the mapping experience.

Peace,

-Boem-

Well, that sounds good as an addition to make the levelling/farming better, but it doesn't tackle some big issues like the wasteful rebalancing and horizontal progression.