The map level renaming and exp penalty rework are disrespectful to players

"

Boem wrote:

In one post you say "damage is irrelevant for people in the 95+ region" in the next post you state maps are significantly harder thus slowing down the progression rate, there is a conflict either it is A or it is B.

It's not. Courtyard and Palace had simple layouts and they were run without zana mods or with domination. Abyss has portals and some backtracking, Colosseum can have backtracking, and Conservatory usually has backtracking too. In addition to that every map has to be run with Ambush, which means you need to stop 4 times per map to roll, open, and clear boxes. Finally, if someone rolls tempchains it's no longer a reroll because it's not dangerous, gives pack size, but it does slow down the clear.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The XP penalty rework definitely does not seem disrespectful to me, based purely on what was in the manifesto. My feeling on that is that player choice for these things tends to be remarkably binary, and that if 15% more XP for +1 maplevel is sufficient motivation, then you won't see much behavior deviation from when the difference was greater... but it's risky, because if it's not sufficient motivation you'll see endgame mapping abandoned on a massive scale. But they're using one-month as a beta, so the data should tell the story on that one.

It's disrespectful in the sense that if you ask anyone in the group of players whom this change is going to affect, none of them like it. There is literally no one who wants the grind to 100 to be longer so they can distinguish themselves as a better grinder. That's a theoretical concept, but there is no one who feels that way. So if no one in the targeted group likes the change, but GGG is going through with it anyways, IMO that's disrepectful to that group.

Nerfing is not disrespect. If anything, it's GGG's sincerest form of flattery.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Nerfing is not disrespect. If anything, it's GGG's sincerest form of flattery.

I feel like you didn't watch any of that video I posted. It really explains what I mean by disrespectful, and how a developer should ideally treat their players.

The truth is that this is a F2P game and all of GGG's design decisions are made with the business side of it in mind. You can say all that you want about the ethical F2P model, but the game itself is designed to 1) be an eternal grind, in the hopes that during that grind you will spend money, and 2) center around gambling mechanics, which are very easy to get addicted to.

When you're having a good time and enjoying yourself it's fine and dandy, but now in hindsight, with almost 5000 hours on my Steam counter, the only thing I can see looking back is how overly manipulative and unrewarding the game has been all this time.

The game and GGG have changed a lot. We went from open communication to almost no communication, and very strategically-timed manifesto posts only when situations reach critical status, and not to share with us elements of game design to make us understand and appreciate the vision of the game. On top of that, manifestos are always lacking in actual content, and it feels like GGG is holding back to try to not let slip what their actual intentions are.

The main developers are very out of touch with what the playerbase actually wants. Both forumers and non-forumers are very disappointed with the current state of the game. There is constant flip-flopping on balance and design elements from patch to patch and all I see is a developer who is clueless about how to manage any of this while trying to manipulate us into staying with extremely scarce item drops, non-existent progression, and gated content. It's actually quite insulting to me as a player. An online game that can't retain its playerbase for more than two months is a game that needs to change.

Its a game (product, consumer good, whatever) that is being sold for money, the only difference is they have an unlimited time frame on the try before you buy, so honestly, how much disrespect are they showing by letting people try their game out for as long as they want without ever needing to pay anything.

Also that dude in the video you posted in the OP was so annoying and whiny, I did not agree with him at all or this post.

I agree that some players are really overrexagerating. 1.3 we had high map drop rates and max 78 maps, in 2.0 low map drop rates and 82. Everyone wanted better drop rates (obviously) but if that were to happen without some way of bringing 80-82 maps down to 1.3 level (and its still higher!) then clearly reaching 100 would take too little time.

For those that are whining, consider what options GGG had? If you have a 3 month league you want to BALANCE it so that even the most 'nolifers' cant reach it super quick.

I personally think the solution is quite elegant, assuming map drops improve across the board (a bit). People will spend less time trading and more time playing. And it will still take less time than in 1.3 probably.

I fail to see anything disrespectful. I'm not a fan of the map relabeling but its certainly not disrespectful lol.

"

Lord_Kamster wrote:

The truth is that this is a F2P game and all of GGG's design decisions are made with the business side of it in mind. You can say all that you want about the ethical F2P model, but the game itself is designed to 1) be an eternal grind, in the hopes that during that grind you will spend money, and 2) center around gambling mechanics, which are very easy to get addicted to.

Right.

"

Lord_Kamster wrote:

The main developers are very out of touch with what the playerbase actually wants.

Wrong. Just read own words in the first quote. GGG perfectly knows what playerbase wants but it just does not fit in F2P business model. That why we do not have self-found leagues, that why we have shitty map drops, crafting limited to rich. That all links of the same logical chain.

"

Drakkon1 wrote:

I agree that some players are really overrexagerating. 1.3 we had high map drop rates and max 78 maps, in 2.0 low map drop rates and 82. Everyone wanted better drop rates (obviously) but if that were to happen without some way of bringing 80-82 maps down to 1.3 level (and its still higher!) then clearly reaching 100 would take too little time.

For those that are whining, consider what options GGG had? If you have a 3 month league you want to BALANCE it so that even the most 'nolifers' cant reach it super quick.

There's is unlikely any intersection between the people who are complaining about L100 becoming more tedious and those who complained about map drops. For instance I thought map drops were fine before the midtier buff, but that's because I'm willing to use all means available to me in order to get maps, not just rely on my own map drop RNG.

The people who were complaining, were those stuck in 73-75 maps, and their argument was:

"

toiletsnake wrote:

make high maps drop more so I can see the tilesets but make them give less exp to high level players because I never get past L90 so idc haha.

What GGG did was make them give less exp, but they're not making them drop more enough to compensate. Everyone loses.

My point is that no one is proud of themselves for being a grinder, and having the game force us to become turbo grinders without giving additional rewards for that turbo grind (a L100 witch achieved before 2.0.fu and after will be equally strong) is disrespectful. I keep reiterating this, because people keep ignoring it, GGG is making the grind longer, not giving rewards, thus devaluing people's time. Someone who is willing to waste your time does not respect you!.

"

MatrixFactor wrote:

The people who were complaining, were those stuck in 73-75 maps, and their argument was:

"

toiletsnake wrote:

make high maps drop more so I can see the tilesets but make them give less exp to high level players because I never get past L90 so idc haha.

What GGG did was make them give less exp, but they're not making them drop more enough to compensate. Everyone loses.

A lot of players were complaining that the 78+ maps are too much RNG-gated. Now they are less RNG-gated (since their drop rate increased). Those players won.

"

MatrixFactor wrote:

95+ is not going to be harder to achieve than before, only more tedious. Those of us who do push into the high 90s basically play builds that crush everything and die only if 3+ rare events align.

And if you have to do twice as many maps, there is twice as big chance that those 3+ rare events do align thus making it harder to achieve than before.

Thinking I will be OK being stuck doing lvl 75 maps because they got renamed tier 7 is insulting to me. However as people have said, drop rates will be buffed with the change, so we will see if it makes a noticibale difference or not.

PS. OP your talking to a community who thinks that time consumption + random luck = challenge. Obvious tactics to get them to play longer and increase the probability of them spending more money will only be met with "thanks for the new challenge!Your the best!" And anyone who doesn't see mindless repetitive tasks as difficulty will be called a casual and told to play D3.