QoL & UI ideas (+ images) // 'Deposit' buttons for currencies, Div cards, etc. // F1 Slots // Etc.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

Thank you, but regarding PvP, I disagree. Diablo II did great with its PvP for its time despite all the
cheesiness and/or cheating players utilized. It at least got players 'involved' in PvP (something PoE
does not do well). PoE was supposed to, in my honest opinion, surpass Diablo II's PvP and make it
better than just walking outside of town and wrecking other players.

PVP in diablo 2 was good for its time, but it still had its problems. most would end in either an assassin trapping the enterance or a sorceress spamming hydras. Though unlike POE, you didnt have ways to completely negate someones defenses with high elemental penetration (except paladin).

anyways , wanted to bump thread to try to get more ppl to see it.

"

almostdead wrote:

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, will do so later. And don't take my post as "not liking the idea" - it wouldn't certainly be a bad change, but whether it is worth spending development time on, I'm not so sure.

I initially interpreted it that way because when you said at the time, and I quote, "Glad to see you know the system and know how easy it is to implement. Please let us know how it works when there are 6 portals opened and 6 people in old instance of hideout and you then create a new instance of a hideout and someone takes a portal from the old instance?" end of quote, that sounded somewhat sarcastic to me, and the fact you did not say anything else in response to the rest of the OP lead me to believe you did not like the other ideas I proposed.

I apologize if I came off brash myself, but I am a little more optimistic about the state of PoE and what I can see happening in the future, if not, sooner than we think.

Furthermore, as for the capabilities of GGG's tools and what they are able to do vs. what they are not able to do, sometimes I believe GGG's tools are more capable than what the devs lead us to believe. They just won't admit it (and this is possible) because they want certain things they probably have plans for to be a surprise, and the surprise factor is what keeps fans of the game tuned in (just like nobody expected, at the time, 10 Acts to be implemented so quickly. Some argue it's actually not 10 new Acts, yet they is beside the point. The game came a long way with loads of high quality content).

"

almostdead wrote:

...it wouldn't certainly be a bad change, but whether it is worth spending development time on, I'm not so sure.

Anything QoL, or anything that has to do with aesthetic appeal (or what I like to call the equivalent of 'curbside appeal' for a business's building) is absolutely worth it and it will be good for the game for both new players and veteran players. And since PoE is free to play, I strongly believe the developers should take making the game 'look' good more seriously since the idea of their business model is to 'draw' players in so as to not only want to play the game, but to support it, too.

I am not saying PoE is not amazing looking so far; I am just saying if it 'looked' more appealing, it will catch on a lot more, and players who support the game (or choose to support the game) will feel like it is worth it, will feel like the money is going toward things that matter, even small things.

"

nadakuu wrote:

PVP in diablo 2 was good for its time, but it still had its problems. most would end in either an assassin trapping the enterance or a sorceress spamming hydras. Though unlike POE, you didnt have ways to completely negate someones defenses with high elemental penetration (except paladin).

My thoughts, exactly.

"

nadakuu wrote:

anyways , wanted to bump thread to try to get more ppl to see it.

Thank you, kindly. I really do appreciate the support.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

I initially interpreted it that way because when you said at the time

I said that because you didn't consider all of the aspects and said that the tech is already in place for that change.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

"

almostdead wrote:

...it wouldn't certainly be a bad change, but whether it is worth spending development time on, I'm not so sure.

Anything QoL, or anything that has to do with aesthetic appeal (or what I like to call the equivalent of 'curbside appeal' for a business's building) is absolutely worth it and it will be good for the game for both new players and veteran players. And since PoE is free to play, I strongly believe the developers should take making the game 'look' good more seriously since the idea of their business model is to 'draw' players in so as to not only want to play the game, but to support it, too.

I don't disagree that QoL improvements are needed but about how to choose which QoL improvements to implement. If they have to choose whether to allocate time for implementing better UI for buffs and debuffs VS keeping portals on hideout upgrade that at most happens 3? times a league per player (and probably <2 times on average), I know which one I would prioritize.

Of course when the change to keep portals on hideout upgrade takes 15 minutes to implement, it will most definitely be worth it, but without knowing the system there is no way to know that.

Edit: Looking at other suggestions, although I didn't agree with all of them, most of them were nice and very well written.

"

almostdead wrote:

I don't disagree that QoL improvements are needed but about how to choose which QoL improvements to implement. If they have to choose whether to allocate time for implementing better UI for buffs and debuffs VS keeping portals on hideout upgrade that at most happens 3? times a league per player (and probably <2 times on average), I know which one I would prioritize.

Of course when the change to keep portals on hideout upgrade takes 15 minutes to implement, it will most definitely be worth it, but without knowing the system there is no way to know that.

Pardon my late reply.

Quote me where I said GGG should work on keeping portals open on Hideout upgrade over UI improvements. I said the exact opposite.

"

almostdead wrote:

Edit: Looking at other suggestions, although I didn't agree with all of them, most of them were nice and very well written.

The suggestions you disagreed with I am almost sure had to do with my take on a new Trade System, yet I removed that part of my OP for reason being it was causing people to go against the ideas in my original Reddit post because they thought I was trying to suggest changing the Xbox version of PoE's Trade System.

That was not the case, but to avoid confusion, I scrapped the idea altogether. Who knows if GGG is using the Xbox version of PoE's Trade System as a test before implementing something like it in the PC version of PoE.

However, in the event the ideas involving the Trade System is not what you did not agree with, I would like to know what ideas you did disagree with so I can address those disagreements.

"

almostdead wrote:

Of course when the change to keep portals on hideout upgrade takes 15 minutes to implement, it will most definitely be worth it, but without knowing the system there is no way to know that.

Funny, because you 'assume' yourself in the above quoted from you. How do you know, without knowing the system, it will not take 15 minutes to implement or an hour at best? Just because GGG has not worked on the issue does not immediately mean their tools are not capable.

Not only that, let me make very clear that there are only 2 other threads that I have seen that talk about the Hideout upgrade issue, maybe 3 threads if you're lucky to find one. The only reason why the issue got at least some attention in my thread is because it involves more than just a Hideout upgrade issue.

Does that mean Hideout upgrading is not an issue when portals close in the process? No. It just means the issue has either 1. not been talked about enough 2. has not been noticed by very many players so as to see a direct relation between their portals suddenly closing to upgrading their Hideout, or 3. both.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

Quote me where I said GGG should work on keeping portals open on Hideout upgrade over UI improvements. I said the exact opposite.

"

almostdead wrote:

you said that anything QoL is absolutely worth to spend time on.

Since I do not want to necro this thread, I will post my reply to your latest reply here.

Exactly, I did, yet there is a difference between Quality of Life (UI improvements) and a bug (Map portals closing on Hideout upgrading). That is not considered QoL; it is considered fixing an issue, no matter how rare its occurrence may be. What is the difference between this particular 'rare' Hideout upgrading bug and other 'rare' issues GGG has fixed, and even openly stated they were 'rare'?

Therefore, yes, I did say the exact opposite that QoL improvements should come first, just like you did in your latest reply.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

"

almostdead wrote:

I don't disagree that QoL improvements are needed but about how to choose which QoL improvements to implement. If they have to choose whether to allocate time for implementing better UI for buffs and debuffs VS keeping portals on hideout upgrade that at most happens 3? times a league per player (and probably <2 times on average), I know which one I would prioritize.

Of course when the change to keep portals on hideout upgrade takes 15 minutes to implement, it will most definitely be worth it, but without knowing the system there is no way to know that.

Pardon my late reply.

Quote me where I said GGG should work on keeping portals open on Hideout upgrade over UI improvements. I said the exact opposite.

you said that anything QoL is absolutely worth to spend time on.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

Anything QoL, or anything that has to do with aesthetic appeal (or what I like to call the equivalent of 'curbside appeal' for a business's building) is absolutely worth it and it will be good for the game for both new players and veteran players.

I was saying that I agree with you that time should be spent on QoL, but since everything takes time and time is limited, it must be spent wisely. Rest of my quote said that I would prioritize better UI for buffs and debuffs (just an example) rather than keeping portals for hideout upgrades. And since hideout upgrade happens so rarely and losing portals to that is even more rare, it would probably be pretty far down in my TODO list.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

"

almostdead wrote:

Of course when the change to keep portals on hideout upgrade takes 15 minutes to implement, it will most definitely be worth it, but without knowing the system there is no way to know that.

Funny, because you 'assume' yourself in the above quoted from you. How do you know, without knowing the system, it will not take 15 minutes to implement or an hour at best? Just because GGG has not worked on the issue does not immediately mean their tools are not capable.

I don't, i have no idea how long it takes. I was saying that if it doesn't take long (for example if it takes only 15 minutes), it might be worth moving it up the TODO list and do it now, but if it takes longer than that, I would probably not spend any time on it in the next years (because there are a lot more QoL and other issues that should be worked on first in my opinion). In the quoted part there were no assumptions - I said what I would do if it was a trivial change and wouldn't take much time and what I would do if it wasn't a trivial change and would take considerable amount of time.