Act 4 Hopes & Suggestions

Besides what's already been published by GGG, some of the these predictable problems (and their solution) will pop-up during closed-beta:


These should/will be implemented


a) Gem tooltip overhaul

Unless flying mosters are invulnerable in flight, gems tooltip needs to mirror the fact that certain "grounded" spells/abilities can actually be used vs those.

Even without this happening, wouldn't a tooltip cleanup be awesome?

b) Gem higher levels

I hope for at least level 25 for a gem and maybe higher quality?

c) Exploits concerning flying hitbox

If flying mosters are not vulnerable in flight, I hope their attackable hitbox doesnt clip the ground they're flying above.

I can already see problems involving the interaction between several gems (Flicker Strike similar)) and the hitbox: charging into the hitbox of a flying mob can actually get the character stuck under it, potentially shoving him under the textures.

This also concerns the ice golem whirling through packs, possibly pushing the character through certain textures, giving him access to restricted areas, or even outside mapping textures.

d) Hideout Master changes

Maybe new layouts/locations for the hideouts, and maybe even more Masters getting invited in the HO? Must have...


Off-the-list for now, these won't happen




a) Stale Graphics/game engine

No matter what GGG do, they can't seem to fix the graphics fps drops. Is it the fault of an old engine's limitations?

Even with the polishes (seen in the several act 4 video previews released), the game engine can't cope with the concurrent amount of spell visuals and party play, no matter what one writes in its defense.

This will not change in Act4, for sure. An upgraded game engine is required...

On a personal note, for example, I wouldn't invest into a spectral throw reskin, because it creates too much lag while playing in a party. The visual spell component adds too much "debree" visually, even if most players have upgraded PCs (my rig = i7 with 8gb+ ram, gtx 960, more than plenty).

It's unacceptable for the game to underperform on such rigs, no matter the amount of visual clutter.


b) Stale UI

In the era of 4k, why does the UI still look bloaty, oversized?

I agree with POE's gritty & dark theme, but I'm referring to the oversized Buff/Debuff icons and general screen realstate "consume".

Of course, we won't see any separation of Buffs / Debuffs in various corners of the screen, this would totally require a restructuring of the game files, splitting the "buffs" folder into two separate ones, rewriting the code, etc...

No UI talk can be accepted without mentioning "UI Sliders"... And if any game needs it more, POE does.

Do I need to mention the fact that opening any type of ingame window shrinks or enlarges the field of view?

Just press "I" or "C" during combat and get frustrated by the loss of character focus. Ye, ye, the character is still centered in the new shrunk window, and with two windows, this gets even more clunky. Take Diablo 3, it doesn't restrict anything, it's a personal decision to open the inventory, especially during combat. And since we can't ask for a custom camera option...

Are you so afraid to let the player be more aware of the ingame environment, or are you trying to push the whole "light radius" mechanics into discussion?

I'm having trouble mouse-hovering in the distance, to be aware and acknowledge the existence of certain offscreen mobs, or at least peak at their "mods".

Shrink the UI, give more screen realstate, more player control: UI rescale slider.


c) No stash / inventory filtering

I'm grateful that a drop item filtering will be available (and tweaked), but meanwhile, the stash is a mess, no matter how much one arranges it.

Its visuals (UI handling, etc) are appealing somewhat, they do the job, but could also be improved.

How about horizontal tabulature, getting rid of the annoying drop-down menu, that has no "order", can't be filtered by search queries, etc.

Similar requests could be applied to the "microtransaction" window, where bought micros or earned ones (league rewards, etc) can't even be organized in a certain manner.


d) Lack of in-combat analytics

We need a way to measure dps output (let's ignore external tools atm).

Give us permanent enemy nameplates, not the current ones activable once entering combat.

I understand the whole ligh-radius mechanics, but at least enable default nameplates for monsters within light-radius.

Also, two words: damage numbers.

e) Ye old desync vs ping mechanics

The new ping mechanics won't solve anything for the hardcore players.

I understand the whole hardcore tribulation, I've experienced it in D3 and what I blamed the most for RIPs was the poor server-client interaction.

Introducing the ping solution won't outrule the obvious: GGG needs to invest into better (and way more) servers, localized ones.

Servers for US, servers for EU, but servers that are "hosted" in regions that better benefit players.

What's the point of adding a ping solution, if server gateway for EU is hosted in US servers.

Hardcore EU/US players would have 150+ ping and get an extra layer of "stress" with the server-client response delay that will increase the number of "RIPs".

I actually believe most hardcore players will not choose to play with lower ping, but still adhere to the desync, because at least in that situation, the panic-logout command is instant.




=========================

This was a bit ranty and I blame myself for liking this game too much, even though I sometimes still compare it to D3.

Still, devs need to funnel extra resources (outsourcing, extra staff members) on delivering an authentic game, in the true sense.

We're not asking for a bug-free game, this will never happen, but for a game that respects current niche standards, it improves upon it and never ceases to amaze players with content, leagues, etc.

a) Gem tooltip overhaul

Yes and no. If most skills can't hit monsters while flying (or they're invulnerable), then there's no need to say that on the tooltip. Tooltips don't mention armor, resistances, etc, either. That being said, if some skills can or can't hit flyers, then the minority skills should explicitly state "can hit flying monsters" or "can't hit flying monsters".

As for a tooltip cleanup, I don't really see it being necessary or viable. While some tooltips are admittedly wildly inaccurate, there isn't really a good way to improve them (that I can think of -- anyone who can, please share), and they serve their real purpose quite well: to give players an indication of relative changes due to gear/gems/etc.

b) Gem higher levels

The problem with this (besides typical balance) is that spells largely rely on their gems for damage, while attacks largely rely on their gear for it. Getting a few extra % physical damage from Cleave in no way equates to the kind of base damage increases that spells get from higher levels.

c) Exploits concerning flying hitbox

I doubt we'll see issues with this. Most likely, flyers have their clipping applied on a different layer than ground-bound objects. Surely, something this major would have cropped up in alpha.

d) Hideout Master changes

New hideouts? Sure. More masters in the hideout? This would be a major balance change in terms of the speed of leveling them up, unless you use some of the caveats I mentioned in another thread -- e.g. the first maxlevel master counts against your limit, but subsequent ones don't.

--offlist--: It's good to realize the devteam constraints, but if we want more devs, we need to consistently throw more money at GGG.

a) Stale Graphics/game engine

This has been discussed and argued to death. They're doing the best they can, given what they have to work with. Many players (myself included) are happy with it as-is, and many players (yourself included) aren't. They're making slow but steady improvements over time, however I doubt that we'll see a complete engine overhaul any time soon (if ever). ARPGs aren't about graphical fidelity, so hopes for upgrades in that department are probably mostly in vain.

b) Stale UI

I think it looks fine on my (admittedly large and high-res) screen. That being said, any sort of customizable UI shouldn't be too hard to implement. My guess is that GGG is reluctant to do this for the same reason that they've given for not wanting to allow lower graphical settings -- it could make the game look bad (or at the minimum, different and/or more confusing) in streams and screenshots.

For that matter, I don't think that this would be too hard to implement -- though of course I can't say that for sure without knowing exactly how they have implemented the current UI.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about with window shrinking/enlarging, but I don't see any problem with the current implementation.

If you mean mouse-hovering at the edge of the screen to see offscreen stuff, that would be a major issue and isn't going to happen.

c) No stash / inventory filtering

Agreed, it would be nice to see improvements to this.

d) Lack of in-combat analytics

I don't see why. To measure DPS, run a map, and compare it to running a similar map with a different setup. Granted, this is only really viable endgame when you really know your build well, but on the other hand, is it really necessary before then?

As for nameplates, perhaps they could add icons to the (soon to be introduced) life bars for mods?

As for damage numbers, I certainly don't want them. But as long as they're optional, there's no reason not to have them (apart from devtime in implementing, which you've acknowledged by putting this in the off-list section).

e) Ye old desync vs ping mechanics

Wait until you (and everyone else) has tested the new system before you decry it.

Agreed about wanting additional servers. Perhaps that's something that the community can discuss with GGG?

=========================

I'd like to believe that GGG manages the money that they make in a responsible fashion. If they can hire extra devs, they will. If we want them to do so, give them more money over a period of time (they're not going to hire more people without a sustainable increase in income, as I really doubt that they want to hire someone only to lay them off in 3, 6, etc, months). Perhaps a bit more transparency in how much money they DO make, and how it's spent, would help a lot in this vein.

As for outsourcing, it's possible, but keep in mind that in any large programming project, there is a large cost to such a thing. The outsourced people need to be brought up to speed on how stuff works (both mechanically and business/corporate culturally), and the main team needs to spend further time interfacing with them. In some cases it can be a net benefit, in others, a net loss. Again, I think that GGG is in the best position to make those calls.