Path of Exile, Gameplay Criticism

"

Fruz wrote:

It does happen in case of bugs or glitches.
But not otherwise.
The things that will one shot/instantly kill you are the telegraphed hits, that you are supposed to dodge, or the things like bearers, volatile, etc ... and are supposed to be mechanically avoided.

If so many are reaching lvl 95+ and 100 HC and SSC HC, it clearly shows that people just don't get killed instantly.

Now, the screen clutter is really not helping anybody here and things that should be seen by the player and then dodged .... aren't always that obvious, and there I think that we have a problem.
For the rest, I disagree.

There is one exception though : Reflect.
Somebody attempting Queen Atziri for the first time will likely blow himself up on the split phase unless using a damage source immune to reflect, and I'm really against reflect in its current state.

Damage spikes can occur, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a telegraphed mechanic. For example, damage that a melee character can't avoid, that happens to come in faster than they can hit an instant heal flask. You can say, "they need better gear or more life nodes", but the speed of the event is what I'm focusing on.

I think we agree enough on this point otherwise.

"

Fruz wrote:

I'm not sure if Chris directly said it or implied it, but it has been discussed in podcasts / interviews in the past.
I wish I could find you a source right now but there is way too much material where that could be for me to look through all of it.
They surely followed D2 regarding this (never played D2, only D1), but liked it ended up balancing the game around it I guess.

It's evident that the game was balanced around logouts, but the intent is very important. Doesn't it seem like a very strange thing to balance a game around?

"

Fruz wrote:

I just find that your tone was more of a "you should really listen to me GGG, because I know what I'm talking about (and your game will die if you won't)" than suggestions.
Pardon me if that was a bit harsh, but that kind of is the feeling I had.
I've seen too many "Do this or you game will die GGG !" threads/messages around here I guess though, and too many people who think that designing a game is easy and that they know it all.

I'm not denying anything about my tone, but the second half of the video is almost entirely suggestions.

You mentioned potential consequences of reducing the number of portals, so clearly you have some standard against which to measure the effect of a penalty.

My response to the unquoted parts are in the next post, and are directed at everyone.

Nobody is denying that we need penalties for this or that purpose (challenge, conditioning and thrill), but we must be able to talk about what our standards are for a penalty, based on its impact on the rest of the game. Penalties don't exist in a vacuum, and that's why I needed to address each of the three topics together (face-rolling, rate wars and death penalty) and their reinforcement of each other.

I posed a question in the middle of the "rant" about death penalties basically asking "if you think the death penalty is fine, what is your rationale for not increasing it". This is, of course, the beginning of an inductive argument where I would then ask, "well, why doesn't this also apply to the current one".

I am trying to force people to realize that penalties don't just exist for their own sake, and that we should be just as skeptical of them as for everything else. This does not mean "remove all penalties", it just means "don't give penalties immunity to criticism".

"

Khalixxa wrote:

Nobody is denying that we need penalties for this or that purpose (challenge, conditioning and thrill), but we must be able to talk about what our standards are for a penalty, based on its impact on the rest of the game. Penalties don't exist in a vacuum, and that's why I needed to address each of the three topics together (face-rolling, rate wars and death penalty) and their reinforcement of each other.

I posed a question in the middle of the "rant" about death penalties basically asking "if you think the death penalty is fine, what is your rationale for not increasing it". This is, of course, the beginning of an inductive argument where I would then ask, "well, why doesn't this also apply to the current one".

I am trying to force people to realize that penalties don't just exist for their own sake, and that we should be just as skeptical of them as for all the other problems with the game.

You haven't built a consensus agreeing that the death penalties are a problem. My rationale for not increasing or decreasing death penalties is that they are "fine" (good, satisfactory). I don't need any other reason.

"

Khalixxa wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

The game has been intentionally balanced around being able to log out, from the start.

It seems like they would have created an "instant teleport to town" hotkey rather than town portal scrolls if their intention was to balance around logging out.

Did a developer ever say this?

YES

"

Xtorma wrote:

You haven't built a consensus agreeing that the death penalties are a problem. My rationale for not increasing or decreasing death penalties is that they are "fine" (good, satisfactory). I don't need any other reason.

What does it take for something to be "fine"? Can you give examples of things that are not "fine"?

"

Millar wrote:

"

Miathan51 wrote:

"

Millar wrote:

Well my armours around 13k and its says 51% dmg reduction..

And do you have any clue how armor works? How damage of a physical hit is calculated? It's on the wiki, look it up.

The short version is that the reduction depends on the damage of the hit, so that there is no set percentage that you mitigate. The percentage in the character sheet is sort of an average. It's basically useless because it doesn't apply to any specific situation.

I'll be honest, I've maybe looked up one mechanic on the wiki. But I didn't start playing a game, to have to read math formulas on a wiki on every aspect of said game. The information displayed in game should give me an understanding of what's going on, no?

I've openly asked for criticism on my gear to help here, If it's not enough to handle a tier 8 map syndicate member. Plz Tell me why? I'm just an average gamer.

The information displayed in the game in this case cannot be accurate because of how they designed certain game systems. In the case of armor, it has diminishing returns on purpose and was meant to be optionally invested into differently than resists for example. The % physical damage reduction shown on the character sheet is basically just a guess based on the area level you're in since area level determines monster level and thus monster damage.

I seem to recall GGG originally didn't want to put that in the sheet because it couldn't be accurate, but players had enough of an outcry to have anything on the sheet telling them what was going on that they decided to add it in. I might be misremembering though so take that with a grain of salt from someone who is focusing on other things at the moment.

10,000 armor will not mitigate 10 times as much damage as 1,000 armor. Against a hit of 1,000, that 1,000 armor alone will only mitigate about 9% of the damage and thus result in taking about 910 damage. The 10,000 armor against that 1,000 hit will mitigate 50% of it and so result in a 500 damage hit.

But 16,000 armor (I'm looking at what Path of Building is showing for your character without flasks up) is usually considered okay if you have other defenses such as Fortify.

-60% chaos resistance is not considered okay though, not anymore. There are too many things that deal sufficient chaos damage now that you must invest into that resistance. You could have easily died to it since a baseline hit of only 5,000 will go up to 8,000 after -60% resistance and drop down to 6,160 when taking 23% Fortify into account since Fortify happens after resistance calculations. Compare to how a baseline elemental hit of 5,000 will go down to 1,250 with only max res (which is expected) and that's quite the difference.

To your credit, there are a number of threads noting how Syndicate damage is too high compared to the area they're in. Some players like it because they want the game to be harder in general or at least have the league mechanics be more noticeable, but others prefer the difficulty to be similar to the area they're in. I'm more in the latter camp, especially when there's so much crap cluttering the screen that characters needing to get into the thick of it can't effectively position themselves to avoid things that would kill them.

Before I look more in depth at your character I should mention that if you want to really learn things about the game and succeed at higher levels then you absolutely need to use 3rd party resources. A single person isn't going to find all the items or item modifiers in the game either and even people who have certain mechanics memorized still use the wiki to double check or more easily consider different combinations. You'll need to look at external resources for that and many other things.

PoE is very complex and in game sheets simply cannot take into account how many things have been added on and stacked up over the years. It is a criticism of the game that some things simply aren't accurate such as certain toolips for skills, but getting tooltips to be totally accurate on the fly has essentially been dismissed as impossible.

That GGG hasn't been on the ball about making sure more in game stuff is accurate and informative is also another criticism of them.

I've taken the liberty of importing your character into Path of Building. Going to spoiler it because it's very much off the original topic...

But do keep in mind your gear and the like do not put you as an average gamer.

"

Khalixxa wrote:

"

Xtorma wrote:

You haven't built a consensus agreeing that the death penalties are a problem. My rationale for not increasing or decreasing death penalties is that they are "fine" (good, satisfactory). I don't need any other reason.

What does it take for something to be "fine"? Can you give examples of things that are not "fine"?

just sayin, but if you want to change the status quo, the burden of proof is on you.

if you don't meet that burden, there's really no need to even debate anything.

"

Jackalope_Gaming wrote:

-60% chaos resistance is not considered okay though, not anymore. There are too many things that deal sufficient chaos damage now that you must invest into that resistance. You could have easily died to it since a baseline hit of only 5,000 will go up to 8,000 after -60% resistance and drop down to 6,160 when taking 23% Fortify into account since Fortify happens after resistance calculations. Compare to how a baseline elemental hit of 5,000 will go down to 1,250 with only max res (which is expected) and that's quite the difference.

What source of chaos damage are you referring to?
Ground effects aside (just don't stand in them), I didn't notice any serious source of chaos damage so far.

most of the major syndicate chaos damage has been nerfed into oblivion (same with the non-chaos syndicate damage), so i don't know how to respond to this now.

"

robmafia wrote:

most of the major syndicate chaos damage has been nerfed into oblivion (same with the non-chaos syndicate damage), so i don't know how to respond to this now.

That's what I thought.

I'm fine with my -44% chaos resist (-9% with atziri flask) against tora in t16, so it can't be that bad.