Endgame vs. levelling

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Thus, what I feel the OP article fails to consider are the advantages of learning cliffs - that is, of abrupt mechanical changes. They allow players to gain a deep understanding of other mechanical systems (in PoE's case, combat) in a less intimidating environment, one which will be utterly absent in the endgame but no longer necessary, having already carried out its function. While I can imagine several endgames less complicated than the map system, and thus many endgames not worthy of a learning cliff, I believe PoE falls rather strongly into the group where such a design decision is not only justified, but virtually mandatory.

That's if the endgame you access is map based rather than a parallel system like I wrote about.
Anyway, you have made good points.

That being said, isn't PoE a kind of game that walls you with brutal difficulty and requires a guide to begin with anyway? I mean, if you want to teach the mechanics through play you are right, but if you remove that requeriment is not a big deal.

Also, if Torchlight 1 and 2 could pull it off to have maps early (parallel in TL1, after defeating the game in TL2), PoE can pull it off too.

What is your opinion about how to handle the whole thing of making late Merciless (or the whole Merciless) a parallel endgame?

I feel you're wrong to look at "Story Mode" as the main thing PoE has to offer. It is definitely the hook, but the map system is the boat. It really heightens the PoE theme of layering RNG on top of RNG in a way which is actually tremendously fun if you're not too persnickity about progression.

Me, I view PoE every bit as much as a spiritual successor to Diablo 1, whose everpresent theme was "randomize all the things!", as it is a spiritual successor to Diablo 2.

I feel that's pretty common for endgame to be the actual experience many developers are trying to deliver. I think it's what Gaffney was trying to get at with those quotes: make something players want to play and play and play, make good mechanics, and if that means disjoining it from story, then so be it.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I feel you're wrong to look at "Story Mode" as the main thing PoE has to offer.

^ Right!

As said, my wish is a possible way to skip the "Story Mode" entirely. I don't want to deal with it again and again and again and again when creating a new build... same for 90%+ of all races. It's the same boring thing over and over with no variation except "differnt" zone layouts and it takes forever -.-

"

Charanjaydemyr wrote:

Aaaand the point keeps getting missed. Point being: we don't need the distinction between core game and end game if its done well enough.

Have to agree and disagree at the same time.
Agree if the core game would be more exciting (meaning variation, no run is like the other) BUT that's hard to do.

Disagree because most skills aren't useable "early game", can't use most support gems, can't use items which are required leads to: boring storymode and flame totem leveling (no matter what your build looks like later).
Is it my fault that it becomes stale if I only use FT? Sure... but otherwise it would take even longer to get through the boring stuff.

Every player should be allowed to choose his poison.


PS: TL;DR is a bane.

"

kcstar wrote:

"

Charanjaydemyr wrote:

Aaaand the point keeps getting missed. Point being: we don't need the distinction between core game and end game if its done well enough.

Have to agree and disagree at the same time.
Agree if the core game would be more exciting (meaning variation, no run is like the other) BUT that's hard to do.

Disagree because most skills aren't useable "early game", can't use most support gems, can't use items which are required leads to: boring storymode and flame totem leveling (no matter what your build looks like later).
Is it my fault that it becomes stale if I only use FT? Sure... but otherwise it would take even longer to get through the boring stuff.

Every player should be allowed to choose his poison.


PS: TL;DR is a bane.

Charan is on point and most of the things you mentioned aren't set in stone.

They are only issue's if perceived as issue's and people become rigid in that notion.

To be fair though, GGG has also become more rigid over time, simply put the plasticity of the core game is in the framework. developing the framework should be key to evolve the game and push it forward.

The awakening attempted to re-establish some of the layers of that framework, which is a good sign to me.

But i will be damned if they can't push it a lot harder.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I feel you're wrong to look at "Story Mode" as the main thing PoE has to offer. It is definitely the hook, but the map system is the boat. It really heightens the PoE theme of layering RNG on top of RNG in a way which is actually tremendously fun if you're not too persnickity about progression.

Me, I view PoE every bit as much as a spiritual successor to Diablo 1, whose everpresent theme was "randomize all the things!", as it is a spiritual successor to Diablo 2.

I feel that's pretty common for endgame to be the actual experience many developers are trying to deliver. I think it's what Gaffney was trying to get at with those quotes: make something players want to play and play and play, make good mechanics, and if that means disjoining it from story, then so be it.

It's not what I wrote about. Rather than story, I wrote about the world. That's it, the story is a group of basic quests for that content. I say the world goes to waste and it could scale to the endgame and be a proper alternative to it. Definitively not about story being the main thing. The world can have RNG layered over RNG too, like Masters.

If people have to endure the first part of the game because the second one is the core one, it annoys the player over time, and that's bad.

Charan gets it. There should be many options for the endgame. Be trading, Atziri, rerolling, maps, the world, hideouts, whatever. That's the reason I wrote the game should be treated a little more like a sandbox after a while.

"

kcstar wrote:

As said, my wish is a possible way to skip the "Story Mode" entirely. I don't want to deal with it again and again and again and again when creating a new build... same for 90%+ of all races. It's the same boring thing over and over with no variation except "differnt" zone layouts and it takes forever -.-

Totally valid. I don't mind running the story once, but even a system to achieve that could be helpful. I suggested some possibilities, but they are not the only valid ones. I just like to have it initially from an inmersion point of view. Story in this game doesn't compare to the behemoth that can be MMORPGs.

I updated a little the original post to reflect the bolded part, :P

"

kcstar wrote:

Have to agree and disagree at the same time.
Agree if the core game would be more exciting (meaning variation, no run is like the other) BUT that's hard to do.

True.

"

kcstar wrote:

Disagree because most skills aren't useable "early game", can't use most support gems, can't use items which are required leads to: boring storymode and flame totem leveling (no matter what your build looks like later).
Is it my fault that it becomes stale if I only use FT? Sure... but otherwise it would take even longer to get through the boring stuff.

Every player should be allowed to choose his poison.

Isn't things like FT a forced meta? I mean, this things get balanced out eventually...That being said, except for competitive types, if the early part of the game is less of a chore, there is no need to rush it. I always start with my main skills, as soon as possible, I dislike to rush.

What about this: the core of a build should be possible to do relatively early, and the rest of the game should be about refining that core or rerolling. Things like building with ES shouldn't wait until the endgame.

To be fair, sometimes is a problem of emergent content. Some builds are endgame only for many factors that were not considered by GGG. Like Fox Tactics (I think). In this case, probably the only thing to expect is to make things better, not perfect.

Early skill balance, and making some things useful (EV/ES, ES) early game are something that we could ask to GGG.

---

Just a question (for everyone): couldn't the last ten passive points be moved early? Level 90 to 100 is the point of decreasing returns, it's pointless to put them there, it's hardly a carrot for that stick, most people there are for abstract reasons (like racing or for the hell of it). You can't squeeze a lot of power from those points, I think it would make sense to have them earlier, following the philosophy of getting to the main build soon(ish), then refining it.

I don't know about 100 (if it becomes something that people expect to get, it'll end being asked to be made available, and that can bring the endgame thing again).

That being said, once you get to the point of slow level progression, other progression mechanics can coexist, given that they are horizontal (like Guild Wars). Paragon is not that, it's fairly vertical and a poor man's sustitute for the lack of player choice when going from 1 to 70.

Gear is one of those, but people complain about it (the gear is too much part of the power, RNG gated, etc.). Given the nature of the game, I don't think is wise to change it (some theorized that 75% of gear power should be easily achievable, and the rest should had decreasing returns).

Master reputation, even with its flaws, it's a good idea of horizontal progression. Gem levels too. Corruptions. Even the whole link think (yes, I agree that it can suck badly).

I guess. Hitting your head against stone must hurt.

That being said, I don't think it will removed without reworking the penalties for dying.

"

Charanjaydemyr wrote:

But if 100 were to become just another part of the room, albeit one higher up, then perhaps we'd have fewer people around here crying from the proverbial pain of banging their heads against the ceiling...and definitely fewer people going, 'what, is that it?' when they finally see the void beyond.

GGG are, frankly, trying to be interior designers when they need to be architects.

I understand what you are trying to say. You could just put the cap at 80 or 90 and call it a day. But it is only part of the problem. I think it is mostly the current gamer's mindset. A mindset that became brutally twisted by World of Warcraft and it's successors. No one is holding a gun to their head to reach 100.

This brings us back to the article 'Working As Intended: Endgame is the worst thing that ever happened to MMOs'. Back in the nineties there were online games out there with a ceiling at 999, yet no one had the intention to reach even beyond 100. The community was totally different and other aspects in the game were far more valued. The way the author described here:



No one was in a hurry to get anywhere. Everyone played their roles that they enjoyed. The community was very much alive. A TRUE online roleplaying experience which I think doesnt exist anymore this day. Mind you even some of these games had far less content to offer than PoE. Yet people stayed.

It also doesn't mean people didn't have certain goals they wanted to achieve but they didn't willfully bang their heads against the proverbial wall. And they didnt act angry and frustrated because that wall is still standing there. Sorry, it is your own goddamn fault if you want to smash your own skull in by fixating on one thing and ignoring all the rest.

To come back to these older online games. Some of them made the fatal mistake to restructure their game's architecture to the image of WoW (since it was so goddamn popular) and destroyed theirselves in the process.