Path of Exile, Gameplay Criticism
" Not really no. There is no reason to change the penalty on death, it being old or not has nothing to do with anything, you would need to explain how it does not fit the game anymore, but you can, because it still does. For other things (like reflect), it's easy to explain how it should have evolved with all the other numbers to still make sense, but in the case of the penalty on death ? Nop, there is none of that. Resorting to "oh but it's old duh! it's so outdated, period" is just showing a clear lack of arguments, nothing more. Face-rolling is a thing that would have been true at the beginning of the game if it was not for the penalty, as it would be now, time changes absolutely nothing about this, and nothing you could propose would change that. The penalty is NOT a problem to begin with. There are many problems in PoE at the moment, many, but trying to create problems out of thin air for things that are working will do anybody any good. SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading.
| |
|
Fruz, I've spent a lot of effort trying to connect the dots in a digestible format. You're under no obligation to go watch the primary video and the 4 supporting ones, but I'm not going to repeat them all here either; I don't think that's fair.
The dominant psychological literature of today stresses the importance of contingency and contiguity for punishments to be successful. Wikipedia has a good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment_(psychology) You asked me in an earlier post about when I mentioned a "tenuous connection" between the punishment and the act that led to it. The lack of a combat log and face-rolling prevents contingency from being realized, and the rate war, prevents the contiguity from being realized. That's to say nothing of the arbitrary size of the penalty and inconsistency of delivery. I mention in my primary video and in my more detailed video on punishments linked in its description, how this connects with video game punishments, which I think you actually watched and responded to earlier. The death penalty has never been changed, so all we have are arguments and speculation about it. I think I made a very strong argument that the death penalty is basically "standing in" for challenge as a crude and inadequate solution to the other two problems. I guess I just don't understand your objection. |
|
" Well then, here goes: Any game with a long-term progression and reward for content run needs to have a drawback for dying. After all, how else would you try not to do it and just simply rush through over and over until you widdle everything down? It wouldn't feel rewarding at all. That was why the exp-penalty was introduced since the dawn of time in PoE, it was made after the same example as D2 followed, a good mechanic, one which does the job. Now the game evolved over time on the other hand. We got the atlas (and hence 6 tries to finish a map) as well as a faster game-play. The game-play at times becomes so unpredictable that with a 'normal' play-style (rather then a very very very conservative one) will get you killed at times. The majority of players fall under that category. We also got progression until lvl 100, where everything above... let's say 95 takes fairly large amounts of time in general. This is paired with a 'fixed' mechanic, 10% exp-loss on death. Also there is no de-leveling which causes dangerous encounters to be avoided unless you had a bad streak, or you've leveled up and are now 'safe'. All of those things put together make it so the 'old' system - while still working - can easily be described as a 'sub-optimal' situation. Solutions for that issue can (can, examples people, examples, some fail to understand what that is sadly, hence I'll make it very clear beforehand): -Regaining a part of exp by going back to the place of death, this usually means dealing with the respective danger that#s still lingering there. (This is something to alleviate sudden difficulty-spikes which are unforeseen) - Adjusting Exp-loss regarding to player-level and content-tier run, with bosses being the most punishing to die and T1 the least punishing. (Scaling) - By reducing the amount of exp gained further on until a threshold is broken rather then removing the already earned exp (Push from active punishment to lack of reward for death) - and many more options available, you just have to think them up. Also we got fairly good examples of how other games handle death, some more severe some less, the current mechanic in comparison just feels 'archaic' to what the game otherwise started to offer. This obviously means not to make it easier, it means to switch the hindrance it is supposed to deliver to another place then the one it is currently at. " Yes, that's true, but read above. While the notion of 'it being old' alone isn't viable, with proper reasoning it makes sense. It just 'hasn't aged well'. So yes, there is SOME of that. " It is ONE of the huge MASS of problems. When you try to grind through endlessly repeating content and enjoy finally being at 80% to level and then... something literally one-shots you. It feels bad. But you have at times no clue why it happened? Was it just a random lucky chance? Did you position yourself wrong? Any type of mitigation which could've helped? You don't know. There a death-recap would help to alleviate - not solve - it. But that's not something GGG will do at the moment as we know. So, in that case you go back into the map as it's not worth giving up the map-reward or sheer sustain (which can be problematic at times) for it. Now you're faced with an issue. If it was sheer chance... all is good. If there was some weird combination of things which are hard to make out --> another 10% gone. This feels demotivating to a large degree. I can count several times since Betrayal this situation has happened and made me stop playing for the day, and in both Synthesis and Legion it was the last straw to say 'screw the league, I'm gone until next'. So yes, it is an issue. GGG balance is like getting a pizza which is burnt on the sides, raw in the middle and misses the most of the toppings.
Then upon sending it back you get a raw side, burnt middle and enough toppings to drench everything in grease. Everything fixed but still broken. |
|
" I've watched the original video ( quite a while ago though I must say ). " Actually, the lack of a combat log would change nothing here, it would help understand what happens, that's true (and that would be a good thing), but it would have no impact on contingency. The rate wars per se does not prevent contiguity. The fact that the rate wars makes the whole balancing more difficult and that GGG is unable to handle their own game balance ( very likely partly because of this of course ) is preventing contiguity, and contingency at the same time though. But those things are not directly related to the xp penalty on death. - If you change the xp penalty on death, you'd have a band aid solution that will achieve nothing ( any singificant-enough penalty that would be meaningful would have the same impact, the same QQer would still QQ about it ) - If the actual problems ( rate wars, current shit balancing, etc ... ) are solved, the xp penalty will likely feel more 'fair' and there would be no need to change it at all ( and it never was an actual problem to begin with ). If solving actual problems would lead to a situation where the xp penalty on death was problematic, your stance would make sense, and it could be seen as a 'problem'. But it's not the case. " It is soft caping people's leveling. And any other way to soft cap people will make the same people who complain ... still complain. " No. Saying facts ( that are no problems themselves ) and adding : it's suboptimal does not make it actually suboptimal, and does not make anything an issue, so your premise is already wrong here. ( And yes, people playing SSF HC do get to level 100 still, not necessarily avoiding any content, so your 'the majority of players' statement is irrelevant I'm afraid. If it's possible, it means that you don't just get one shot out of the blue, and I say that after having lost a SSFHC lvl 89 chars instantly to a Legion gangbang squad this league ). " No. see the rest of my post. Those "should I go back in there ? I am scared !" situations are also not (necessarily) bad for the game, that's like one of the only things that can "scare" a player left in the game. Fortunately, this feeling also applies when a charater gets chunked a huge part of its buffer and leaves ( logging out or not ) so this still applies to HC. SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading.
| |
" But that's not any form of viable benchmark though. It's the same as saying Dark Souls without getting hit is a fine thing to have. Sure, some people will get there, some ALWAYS do. It's the quantity of people getting there on the other hand via methods which require skill-based play rather then luck or simple tedium. You see, SSF HC lvl 100 is fairly easy as soon as you have at least decent equipment and a decent build. Here's how you do it: Farm T11, don't go higher. Don't open Legion, don't do blight (waste of time in SSF anyway), don't deep-delve, don't even try to do uber-elder. Because if you only go by a benchmark of 'lvl 100 is my goal' the most efficient way is to mind-numbingly repeate 'safe' content over... and over... and over again. It's not a challenge, that's a chore. Sure, you also CAN reach lvl 100 by not doing that, but the number for this way is by far smaller then the number of people reaching it because they play it safe. Because of the rate-war the issue is: No matter how well you play, sooner or later the 'one' situation will happen where you're just screwed. It's an RNG-factor which happens rarely... but makes your character be 'gone' when it does. So why even attempting to do it then? " True, absolutely. I'm on your side here. Those situations need to be there, they are healthy, they make the game exciting. The base notion from your side there is a bit wonky though. First of all 'one of the only things left' <-- this alone shows that the rate-war has taken a toll. So we need to remove that from the whole reasoning in the first place and then look for the underlying 'optimal' solution. Or well.. at least a 'good' solution. Which then means the game has to provide other means of giving the player the 'I'm scared' feeling. This can be done by long-lasting fights which needs concentration, have one-shot effects added in but those are easily visible and can be evaded respectively. You'll have the situation there then, no need for 'Oh damn I hope I won't find an invincible-shrine with those little vaal range-mobs this time!' which isn't a viable solution. It's cheesing the player into such a feeling, it's fun the first, second... maybe third time. Afterwards it'll feel like BS. As you've taken all measures to handle content on your respective level but the game just slamming in a 'Screeeew you suuucker!'-situation. A game supposed to be played long-term needs to have 2 meaningful ways of progression: -Time investment -Personal skill-level The current situation makes it so someone with a 'casual skill-level' WILL be stuck at level 95 at most. He won't EVER get to lvl 100, even should he play his character for 2-3 years and 8 hours day. This is bad. The same goes for content which doesn't require any form of skill. If that is missing... what's the value for obtaining anything? Just waiting and receiving stuff is usually no long-term motivation, at least mediocre skill is supposed to be existing. So, while a 'decent' player is thus able to reach lvl 100 in 3 months a 'good' one will do it in 1 month and a 'casual' in 1 year. That's a good place for a game to be, incentive for each category of players, the main reason why World of Warcraft fell under so much scrutiny as they removed this incentive as they grew bigger and older. The same issue which GGG is facing in the same direction. Mind-numbing time-investment in low-level content is higher valued then a 'decent-skilled' player running content according to their power-level. Why? Because the decent one will die sooner or later (or have luck and actually make it to 100, but that's luck) while the casual one will very likely reach lvl 100 by going the long route. Is it earned? Nah, not really, everyone can do it, the only reason to say 'hey, well done!' then is to acknowledge their mental fortitude of not going insane by doing it. So lvl 100 itself in the current situation is only of value for a few people as the majority doesn't even try because of the utter ridiculousness of the system presented. That's why an alternative way of the death-penalty is important, one which does give incentive to run content for your own power-level and face danger, meaning less punishment through death there then in content above your power level or below your power level. Proper scaling rather then a fixed amount. GGG balance is like getting a pizza which is burnt on the sides, raw in the middle and misses the most of the toppings.
Then upon sending it back you get a raw side, burnt middle and enough toppings to drench everything in grease. Everything fixed but still broken. |
|
" Because you said so ? Of course it is, if they can make it, it means that it's possible to do so, and that people are expected to aspire to this level ( not everybody is expected to though of course, which is why dying once in a while is acceptable I guess ). " No, that's just bullshit now, Darkshouls without getting hit is nearly impossible, realistically impossible. Reaching level 100 in PoE already takes a ridiculous amount of time, not dying on the way to 100 is already enough of a proof that you don't "just die" out of your control if you know what you're doing ( and even though some blight bosses seem overtuned, they are/were not all skipping them ). " Talking out of your *** now I see. Let me remind you that you've never touched HC, so keep whatever [removed by me] condescending **** for yourself now ( yes, that's what it is ). Did you just miss the part where I was saying NOT NECESSARILY AVOIDING ANY CONTENT ? Can you see it ? Some took down uber elder, are opening every legion encounter, blight encounter, etc ... Octavian is leveling to 100 right now, running what ? Elder maps. Because THIS is the more efficient way to do it, you can keep running t11 all day if you want, but the incentive to run higher content is already there, and nothing you can throw here will change that. " Irrelevant. " Nonsense If you're invested enough in the game to reach level 95 on your own, you don't have a 'casual skill-level' and are invested enough to go the extra mile to reach level 100 ( if you're not stupid and are willing to get there, that is ). The rest of your post is based on either wrong premise, or irrelevant things. SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading. Last edited by Fruz#6137 on Sep 29, 2019, 10:02:44 PM
| |
" [Removed by Support] I wish that game allowed you to actually build your own character, rather than pick a setup of instantly changeable skills and items, but at least the game doesn't keep shitting on me, and doesn't add tens of layers of mechanics to add artificial complexity and grinding (I am looking at itemization and crafting in particular). I have better stuff to do than go into dumb experience loss loops. |
|
" It's also possible to kill uber elder with lvl 36, or deep-delve to depth 5000. That's all NOT a benchmark. Those all are EXCEPTIONS. Why? Because they are rare, the outright definition of exception. Why are they rare? Because they need far superior knowledge of the game as well as awareness and focus during the whole play-time compared to someone who doesn't do it for that direct goal in mind. For the majority of players this feels exhausting rather then enjoyable. Hence NOT a proper benchmark, again. " Yeah, my lvl 89 HC-char I had back in Abyss is my imagination then. Sure, the game was quite different then, obviously... but the concept stayed the same. Ah, maybe my imagination is going through with me again here, might be the case sadly. I don't know, tell me Fruz, you seem to know more about me then I do myself! Should I go for groceries rather today or tomorrow? You might know it after all, you've got surprising insight in what I do or don't do as it seems. " Yes. " Yes, and RNG will or will not fuck him over. Octavian is good enough of a player to reach lvl 100 95 out of 100 tries if there isn't some weird BS happening. He's 98 right now... so he got a looong way ahead of him still. And sure there is incentive, I've never said there wasn't. All I said is 'If you want to reach lvl 100 then doing it the safe way is obviously the smarter method to do so'. Which is an obvious thing to say. Taking 1 1/2 months for someone who simply wants to get to HC 100 is better then trying to rush through it in 1-2 weeks max and die repeatedly whenever you run high-end content long enough. But again: At high-end content it's not an 'if' question if you die, it's a 'when'. Your character could die from random BS after 100 maps... or after 100000 maps, pure RNG. The issue is that WHEN such a situation happens you can't do anything against it. It was the same at my HC playthrough in Abyss, server-side crash --> character dead. Never touched HC again after, just not worth the time in my personal opinion in PoE. ANY other game I absolutely LOVE challenge. I'm a vigilant fan of rogue-likes, I played through D2 in HC, finished 'ADOM 2' dozens of time with different setups, went personal deathless runs in different games and played stuff like Mythic difficulty in Halo 3. Not a SINGLE other game I played ever had such an atrocious experience like HC in PoE. It's a disaster, it's literally in a disgusting state compared to other games. And that's sad to say. But well... sadly that's the whole 'competition' part of PoE in general. Ladders are UTTERLY useless as league-starts are a bug-festival. Hence pure luck if you're on top or not. No daily/weekly/monthly leaderboards in a large variety of categories, the ONLY incentive in PoE for racing is 'Start at Day 1!'. Sure, you can overtake people in front of you... but you're handicapping yourself if you even start off an hour later then others. No stats on 'maps run per day', 'bosses per day', 'quickest from lvl 1-70' and different level-specific categories. The current leaderboard in general is an utter joke. It's an insult to anyone who properly thrives to do competitive play while having a proper knowledge of your personal placing in different categories. " Umh... you do realize that at lvl 95 and considering you're running T16 content only... you only got 17% of the total way to lvl 100 done? But yes, I'm also like this. 'Ah, I went 20 kilometer today, phew, that was exhausting, ah, screw it, I'll do the leftover 325 as well!' A sensible thing to say, very sensible :p So, suggesting that 'if you reach A you will also reach B' is just senseless. That's not a logical thing to go from in the first place. Would the remaining amount the smaller then the already invested one then sure... but it's the other way around here, and not by a small margin either. GGG balance is like getting a pizza which is burnt on the sides, raw in the middle and misses the most of the toppings.
Then upon sending it back you get a raw side, burnt middle and enough toppings to drench everything in grease. Everything fixed but still broken. |
|
" ROFL Not dying is "NOT a benchmark" -____-" ffs ... " Good, the majority of players isn't expected to reach level 100. " Let me guess ... that was on a different account, right ?
Spoiler
(from your achievement list, of course)
 But of course we're going into the "Oh, but, well, I had another account ! yes I did ! I bet we are ... " ..... You realize that the significant time increase by running t11 is a risk by itself, right ? You realize that t11 can also kill you, only if you spend 3 times more time in there, you have 3 times the time to get killed, even if things hit "softer". " Aaaannnd we are back to the same nonsense, so again, in short : "You don't know what you're talking about, you're talking purely out of thin air, you should stop" And according to you, I bet streamers and other top players are always lucky, I bet you believe that they have favorable drop rates too, huh ? *sigh* " Absolutely irrelevant to what I said (in case you did not actually notice). Or did you just completely missed the point ? (hint : the underlined part also matters) SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading. Last edited by Fruz#6137 on Sep 30, 2019, 6:46:03 AM
| |
|
Hey everyone. This is just a reminder to keep your comments focused on the discussion and not on insulting or antagonising one another. We will be moderating posts that breach our Code of Conduct. If you're uncertain of the rules, please read them over here.
|
