Endgame vs. levelling

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

People are already mapping, less than a few days into it.

But it requires no lifing for a while, even if you are not an expert.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

Holy FUCK I am seriously craving a game where levels matter. Where a ding, any ding, is cause for celebration. But said game also needs to have vast character customisation, very diverse itemisation and an original, absorbing setting where lore is the skeleton of the beast, not the skin and muscle.

Levels in this game sometimes are just mere stat sticks. I think that parallel ways of progression should be given that make this things interesting (I don't know, like the Bandit quest, or rewards like Diablo 2; socketing and linking anyone?).

"

Reinhart wrote:

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.

Thing is that in PoE there are limited roles. There is some intent to do that(Sacrifice fragment farming, divination farm farming, MFing some bosses), but it should be explored a lot more seriously by everyone. We have pyramid schemes right now, rather than parallel activities with comparable profit or fun factor.

"

Reinhart wrote:

The core game should actually be normal difficulty. And what is being offered their, is truly magnificent. People might not see it anymore on their gazillion'th playthrough but do give it some credit. The original intention was to have around 10 acts and the phasing out of the higher difficulties but I think that is a pipe dream. To be honest if they refine the end of act 4 a bit more, the game would actually feel finished. I think we will see a conclusion there in the near fture where people will feel they have finished the game. I am really surprised how they could extend the story beyond this point.

Hey, there are some things that are not answered yet, like the nature of the Beast and what happened with the Vaal. It's not the first time the Nightmare was defeated (I think Alano Phrecia achieved it in the past). I think there is at least space for one Act more. That being said, it still applies, the main story could be finished relatively soon.

The rest of your ideas are good, given that we are not forced to play the same story quests again. That's just filler.

"

Reinhart wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

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.

Disagree. Name me a MMORPG with better story/lore. I know it is subjective but plz surprise me.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

Guild Wars 1/2.

Eve.

Dark Age of Camelot.

Everquest 1.

...That was easy.

Both of you are wrong...


About what I said, anyway.
I called those Behemoth because of the size (running Normal in PoE doesn't compare to running the story in a lot of themepark MMORPGs). Not because of the quality (I can't say for most of them).
I like a lot PoE's lore, but it could be better presented to make players have some interest.

All that we need after some months is a fresh new act 5, don't we?

Inefficient. It will take years.

The game must be rethought to make the actual content more effective and be expanded in a non wasteful way, then more acts will be welcomed.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Inefficient. It will take years.

thats the initial idea behind POE... "up to 10 acts" was just as we wanted to understand GGG, what they really said (and clarified later) was: "we'll support the game for up to 10 years" They already proved that such additional content doesnt mean +1 act in any case.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

rethought to make the actual content more effective

isnt exactly this 'striving for effectiveness' what drive people's minds into that stage where only the 'most competetive' one "wins" and 'counts' - in a type of game where you dont play against others (at first/most) and from this, competetiveness is barely more then a minor side aspect...

The difference to D2 as a well kown example is that in these times only for a very few of a very large players base maximizing (especially for xp) was a mattering topic - speed runs and other record breaking attempts were not a thing where the majority was actively involved; now it seems to be where nearly everyone is focussed on.

"

kcstar wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

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

As said, my wish is a possible way to skip the "Story Mode" entirely.

Of course its imaginable to start with playing in a sequence of random dungeons - like Descent, Champions and Endless Ledge already do (but with town, or any kind of NPC access). But what would such a "game without background story" have in common with what we know of POE (and what dev's had in mind)? Why not just start rich in Monopoly, why not skip this dumb, eversame circling in 'Ludo' before we start to push the pawns into the home?

Regarding the level cap, there is a reason why people are fixated on reaching 100, and it hasn't got to do with the often thrown around " I want to really easily reach 100 hur dur"

Its more got to do with the fact, that due to the way that the PoE skill tree is designed, your build can actually finish anywhere between 90-100. In the majority of the other games, builds finish much earlier, and subsequent levels just increase the strength of the build (rather than completing it).

Pretty much every other aRPG follows this model. While it is definitely true that cookie cutter builds should finish around 85, once you start doing something a littlle off you can easily get into the case where builds finish much later than 85, where it be those few points for mana reservation for that last aura, or those last few points into charges, or that extra jewel socket which will convert all life into mana

Historically speaking, most good aRPG's do provide progression after the end game, but most of that progression involves bumping your fire ball to do 300 rather than 200 damage, instead of fundamentally changing what your build does

I think the easiest way to solve that problem would be to raise the cap to 120, make reaching 100 roughly the same amount of time that reaching 90 currently takes, and add an extra ring around the current passive tree that just has + stat nodes (and in those extra 20 levels, you have to pick those stat nodes). It would achieve the same thing, without fundamentally changing how PoE works

"

deteego wrote:

I think the easiest way to solve that problem would be to raise the cap to 120, make reaching 100 roughly the same amount of time that reaching 90 currently takes,

...and it would change exactly nothing in the mind of the criers: it would still be too hard and take too much time to max it out. "Highest map and ultimate level are all that counts", just rush to the point where's nothing left to do and then start to complain about it. ^^

"

due to the way that the PoE skill tree is designed, your build can actually finish anywhere between 90-100

IMHO, a build should be 'finished' (fully functional working) as it starts seriously mapping (entry!). Any char progress beyond, is just boosting defence (~90%) and the remaining 10% into damamge and the 'rest'.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

thats the initial idea behind POE... "up to 10 acts" was just as we wanted to understand GGG, what they really said (and clarified later) was: "we'll support the game for up to 10 years" They already proved that such additional content doesnt mean +1 act in any case.

True, still, that's just a part of the puzzle, there are many things to consider. Not just adding more acts (I bet for Act V), but making sure parts of the game don't become obsolete while expanding (or just like it is right now, where maps eclipse the rest of the game).

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

isnt exactly this 'striving for effectiveness' what drive people's minds into that stage where only the 'most competetive' one "wins" and 'counts' - in a type of game where you dont play against others (at first/most) and from this, competetiveness is barely more then a minor side aspect...

See Deteego. Builds here are somewhat different from D2 (I think that was a design mistake, but who could know?).

Also, you can't just blame everything on competitiveness and the players, this is a design mistake. For example this article, that GGG follows to heart (in their own admission). If you are a creative oriented player, those last points are the ones that screw you. Competitive players couldn't care less about those last points, they are mostly about getting there first or doing it for the sake of doing it.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

Why not just start rich in Monopoly, why not skip this dumb, eversame circling in 'Ludo' before we start to push the pawns into the home?

Meh, that's just a strawman. Problem here is: what is considered fun is at higher levels. Why don't just bring the fun earlier? There is a sweetspot to be found out there. It's not even about gear or feeling powerful, literally the fun part is at higher levels.

"

deteego wrote:

I think the easiest way to solve that problem would be to raise the cap to 120, make reaching 100 roughly the same amount of time that reaching 90 currently takes, and add an extra ring around the current passive tree that just has + stat nodes (and in those extra 20 levels, you have to pick those stat nodes). It would achieve the same thing, without fundamentally changing how PoE works

There is an easier form: let the people end their builds earlier, and let the grind for those who compete. One way of doing it is to move the last points to earlier levels. For example, giving double passive points in the 80-90 range, or having more point books while levelling. That being said, there would be problems still, and it just would end part of the complaining.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

but making sure parts of the game don't become obsolete while expanding (or just like it is right now, where maps eclipse the rest of the game).

That also depends on the mindset - isnt the voice of so many, that anything is 'obsolete' prior to maps; or even prior to 80+ maps?

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Also, you can't just blame everything on competitiveness and the players, this is a design mistake

A design mistake to offer multiple ways to play the game? ^^ IMHO more a mistake to not expect that each of these fractions demand their interests as the major one...

"

NeroNoah wrote:

If you are a creative oriented player, those last points are the ones that screw you. Competitive players couldn't care less about those last points

there is more then one kind of competition (even as they have different weight), you know? And all of that ways offer their own goal, specialisation and (sometimes) meta layer.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Problem here is: what is considered fun is at higher levels.

why? (and: for whom?) Who defines the 'ultimate' fun, but each on his own? Some (many) like to just blast through, some 'prefer' to win struggles, some want creative solutions to overcome.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Why don't just bring the fun earlier? There is a sweetspot to be found out there.

Why not feel the fun earlier? Of course its even more satisfying to blast through higher levels, but its literally the same game in A1N then in A4M. Only exception: "gated" drops.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

It's not even about gear or feeling powerful

In the end, its all about feeling powerful, isnt it? Thats the most satisfying aspect from playing the (core) game. (satisfaction from trade-ripoffs (or even just 'good deals'), PPK, etc. aside because it doesnt matter here)

"

NeroNoah wrote:

let the people end their builds earlier, and let the grind for those who compete.

IMHO thats already the case - but the complainers complain about the grind.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

One way of doing it is to move the last points to earlier levels.

There again (but obviously not in the amount you imagine): already the case: Tasuni in Merciless gives you the last additional passive points: these quest rewards ARE literally your pushed-to-early 'last points'. When a char hit that point (still around entry map level), the 'final' grind begins, up to the patience of the player.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

That also depends on the mindset - isnt the voice of so many, that anything is 'obsolete' prior to maps; or even prior to 80+ maps?

True, but that's more on the game design rather than the player mentality. That's the reason I wrote the initial post. Games where the activities you do don't change significantly at the end have less problems with this.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

A design mistake to offer multiple ways to play the game? ^^ IMHO more a mistake to not expect that each of these fractions demand their interests as the major one...

?
I'm sure this is not what I wrote. What I wrote is that you can't think every players lives to be competitive.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

there is more then one kind of competition (even as they have different weight), you know? And all of that ways offer their own goal, specialisation and (sometimes) meta layer.

So...creative players (for example, Ghudda) are competing against who?

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

why? (and: for whom?) Who defines the 'ultimate' fun, but each on his own? Some (many) like to just blast through, some 'prefer' to win struggles, some want creative solutions to overcome.

Why not feel the fun earlier? Of course its even more satisfying to blast through higher levels, but its literally the same game in A1N then in A4M. Only exception: "gated" drops.

I already wrote about that, I don't know why you ask. You just can't blame players (hell, even people that do what you say like Charan, that finds the fun rerolling characters, agree with me) because of the design. It can be argued maps are more fun because they offer a free form experience, and a fairly more randomized one thanks to affixes.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

In the end, its all about feeling powerful, isnt it? Thats the most satisfying aspect from playing the (core) game. (satisfaction from trade-ripoffs (or even just 'good deals'), PPK, etc. aside because it doesnt matter here)

No, there is fun. I can talk personally, I'm here just because I like the game, feeling powerful is not a factor (actually, I prefer to be weak, just because I like challenges; I'm self found, but not the kind that asks the game to be tailored around one). I wonder how you can explain why someone would play something like Dark Souls with that way of thinking.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

IMHO thats already the case - but the complainers complain about the grind.

The nature of the passive skill tree in PoE (with Keystones and Notables) makes that those last points are not that optional as it would have been in D2 with its stats allocation and making a skill stronger. Those last points can unlock a last notable and make a world of difference.

The "complainers" complain because those last levels are extremely punishing and the game gates the areas with more experience behind a paywall. Even people that can actually play level 82 maps or Uber Atziri (And end all the challenges) are complaining.

You'd do fine opening your mind about different player types and accepting the validity of their claims, even if you don't agree. Not all is on the player, there are a lot of bad designed stuff in this game. Not everyone plays to feel powerful™ or as a competition.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

So...creative players (for example, Ghudda) are competing against who?

As for streamers, I'd say he 'competes' for publicity (in absolutely no negative way) And even without this, different mindsets across the whole board between casualists like Charan and this top-end also include people that dont aim for any 'real' competition at all.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

some 'prefer' to win struggles

No, there is fun. I can talk personally, I'm here just because I like the game, feeling powerful is not a factor

See above, I had 'your' group already... ^^

"

NeroNoah wrote:

It can be argued maps are more fun because they offer a free form experience, and a fairly more randomized one thanks to affixes.

Maps are less limited, given the fact that they stand outside of a story 'corsage' - but I dont see what influence this makes on experience? (you also have a free choice of all regular areas once you have their wp's) And maps are still 'limited' by their binding to a preset layout... (opposite to the previous beta-endgame (maelström), where each sequel are was completely random)
Finally: I prefer to have 'more control', so I also prefer less randomness here. I'm not a 'fan' of massive guest monster appearances nor of a widely free choosen monster variety in maps.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

In the end, its all about feeling powerful

I prefer to be weak, just because I like challenges; I'm self found. I wonder how you can explain why someone would play something like Dark Souls with that way of thinking.

Even the weak want to beat the challenges - they just dont aim for numbers and maximizing as others. I'm in the same boat, even as more from a different coast...
I wont really compare Dark Souls to games from the 'Diablo universe', me, for example knows that it'll never be "my" game. But I also know that some people are not white or black and can enjoy (even such complete) different kinds of game and challenge.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

The nature of the passive skill tree in PoE (with Keystones and Notables) makes that those last points are not that optional as it would have been in D2. Those last points can unlock a last notable and make a world of difference.

Its not that far away from each other, at least for the late versions of D2 with its synergies... You there have/had 98 levelups, and many builds with lots of this synergies struggled on the 'upper end'. Here in POE instead, it doesnt matter at all if the 'important keystone' is taken as 50th or 75th or 111th point, but of course you have to route to it/them first and obviously have to stay in the limit.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

You'd do fine opening your mind about different player types and accepting the validity of their claims, even if you don't agree. Not all is on the player, there are a lot of bad designed stuff in this game. Not everyone plays to feel powerful™ or as a competition.

Any opinion is welcome (even if it sometimes doesnt sound so), but claims and demands are hardly valid if they base on the 'insight' thast the game should change in a way it never wanted to be. You can turn a chessboard in to a backgammon one, but you should not longer call it chess then. The game designed by GGG followes an idea, and even as its growth with updates seems to dilute that idea partially, that pristine idea is IMHO still there.