I am lucky, therefore game is fine

I agree with JohnKeys on risk/reward changes. I don't think guaranteeing somewhat better loot from stronger foes would in any way "completely break" the multiplayer aspect of PoE, any more than Atziri or mirror service oligarchies or reduced build diversity already broke it.

I also trade and embrace trading (although I think it's a bit too time consuming with the current system) and I think the economy is important.

Some people may not be able to understand how I can agree with JohnKeys and also trade. The answer is JohnKeys has some good ideas.

I don't particularly care for bartering on this game either. I only do it out of necessity.

Using the trade channel is annoying and endless. It is rarely productive. Most people just flood the event board with public parties advertising a specific deal. This is less painful and more effective. It's hardly what I would consider some grand multiplayer experience though.

"Meet me in my hideout, that ok?"
"Sure"
Trade
"Ty"
"Ty"
Leave party

An amazing experience? I would describe it as not even a mildly entertaining one.

I agree with John. This game's strength lay in the depth of its gameplay specifically its character building. The multiplayer aspects of Path of Exile are piteous in my opinion.

The experience penalty on this game especially at higher levels is severe. To risk death in a difficult boss fight for the same kind of loot you could obtain from an easier encounter doesn't make any sense. So increasing the odds of obtaining valuable treasure from difficult encounters would help change this. Otherwise players (myself included) will be skipping past these fights.

Why risk losing hours and hours of work for what will likely be vendor trash?

"

Berylstone wrote:

The experience penalty on this game especially at higher levels is severe. To risk death in a difficult boss fight for the same kind of loot you could obtain from an easier encounter doesn't make any sense. So increasing the odds of obtaining valuable treasure from difficult encounters would help change this. Otherwise players (myself included) will be skipping past these fights.

Why risk losing hours and hours of work for what will likely be vendor trash?

Because risk is relative. The encounter you're scared of can be roflfacetank easy for someone else.

The entire concept of risk-reward simply doesn't fit ARPGs. The entire genre. This is a genre where characters are decidedly NOT uniform and the changes they face are quite often not uniform, either, so trying to tune individual encounter rewards (in a srs business manner) by difficulty is as foolish as chasing the wind. It might exist in other genres, but as far as ARPGs go we shouldn't even be trying for risk-reward balance.

Instead, it is more properly thought of as "gearcheck-reward" or "theorycraft-reward," substituting in two mechanics ARPG players use to mitigate risk to the point of triviality. Of these two, the former makes the player feel like a passive entity slogging through the computer's feedback loop, while the second encourages cleverness and is one of the things PoE should be about.

So in conclusion:
1. Risk-reward is a lie
2. The drops for bosses you consider too risky should not be evaluated according to their "risk" but by how much smarter than you the players who can safely farm those bosses are (rewarding cleverness)

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The entire concept of risk-reward simply doesn't fit ARPGs.

that's a lie. we both know it's a lie. everyone who ever played more than one (or a dozen) ARPGs, knows it's a lie.
please stop using it.
unless you want a page-long list of games in the genre that had at least some implementation of the risk/reward principle, to at least some degree.
(hint: it pretty much corresponds to "list of all ARPGs since the genre was born").

however I am intrigued by your "rewarding cleverness" idea.
what does it mean?
and - more importantly - how do you implement it?

in terms of an Algorithm, it is possible to create one which biases RNG, according to the relative difficulty of a sequence of encounters.
a difficulty, which can be measured in many, many ways. some of which suggested as early as Closed Beta.
a sequence, that can indeed challenge most builds if done correctly, even though that may not necessarily be true for each individual encounter in it.
at this point, I believe we are not arguing over the fact it's possible. only over how hard it would be to do, given PoE's immense diversity.

is "cleverness" the smart use of game mechanics? the originality in making an unpopular build work with sheer game knowledge?
if so, I'm definitely for the idea... but how can you measure it?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Berylstone wrote:

The experience penalty on this game especially at higher levels is severe. To risk death in a difficult boss fight for the same kind of loot you could obtain from an easier encounter doesn't make any sense. So increasing the odds of obtaining valuable treasure from difficult encounters would help change this. Otherwise players (myself included) will be skipping past these fights.

Why risk losing hours and hours of work for what will likely be vendor trash?

Because risk is relative. The encounter you're scared of can be roflfacetank easy for someone else.

The entire concept of risk-reward simply doesn't fit ARPGs. The entire genre. This is a genre where characters are decidedly NOT uniform and the changes they face are quite often not uniform, either, so trying to tune individual encounter rewards (in a srs business manner) by difficulty is as foolish as chasing the wind. It might exist in other genres, but as far as ARPGs go we shouldn't even be trying for risk-reward balance.

Instead, it is more properly thought of as "gearcheck-reward" or "theorycraft-reward," substituting in two mechanics ARPG players use to mitigate risk to the point of triviality. Of these two, the former makes the player feel like a passive entity slogging through the computer's feedback loop, while the second encourages cleverness and is one of the things PoE should be about.

So in conclusion:
1. Risk-reward is a lie
2. The drops for bosses you consider too risky should not be evaluated according to their "risk" but by how much smarter than you the players who can safely farm those bosses are (rewarding cleverness)

What you're essentially saying is that balance doesn't and can't exist, which I don't think is true at all. Sure, everything can be trivialized, but most of that is a consequence of trade. Self-found players generally aren't facerolling the game, and are actually happy about that. And of course there's risk/reward--it's already present in PoE. Bosses are generally harder and drop better loot than rares, which are generally harder and drop better loot than blues, followed by trash mobs. But the problem is the lack of calibration between the bosses around which the endgame, particularly the map system, revolves. I get that there are map levels with bosses that are comparatively easy for some builds, harder for others, and then vice versa, but that doesn't mean things can't improve in the big picture. Is there any build that crushes Eater of Souls but struggles with Voll? Then why does Voll drop better loot when you account for accessibility and clearspeed?

"

This thread is a fun read. Miracle it didnt get a lock lol.

This. except it wasn't that fun to read the same s*** each page from OP.

OP post' history is like 700 pages of complains and QQ's, but people still feeds him and admins don't bother locking this.
Complaining and playing about the same game for almost 2 years, and still complains about it, and still playing it ? Wow its not even illness, its now a real mental issue.

"

You don't care at all about the overall health of the game if this is what you honestly think, you just care about your standalone, 'singleplayer' experience.

Nuff said.

Could this thread finally get locked ? Its boring to see the same QQ thread from always the same haters at the top of the forum every day, this thread was maybe interesting in 2013 but not anymore since OP talk always the same bs. Maybe we could finally see some others threads froms ppl who really want to debate and share their experiences and not showing theirselves ? Thanks a lot.

What has been read cannot be unread.

"

MoonYu wrote:

I happen to like Jk's threads, but there are many I don't care for. So like Grant said, I don't click on them.

I also get his original point that so many here have ignored, but whatever.

I like Jk's threads as well. Jk for president!

I bet he is better than that Daffy Trump guy.