Path of Exile, Gameplay Criticism

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

See, this is the problem, you find the way you die unfair, you base it completely on your subjective opinion on what is fair and what is not. Doesn't work this way.

And if you die in the first 10 minutes you lose the currency you gained + from the last 50 minutes of the previous session. And if you don't have it anymore you go into debt you must pay first before you start gathering your currency again.

Sounds like American student loan system, lol.

Of course, one wouldn't bother with a video game where you'd be serving your virtual debt to play the actual game. In this sense PoE is less about challenge. Equally, regaining lost XP is about tedium, not 'a challenging gameplay feature'. In principle they could rebalance it so staying alive was harder and penalty for each death was less severe. What I've been arguing to no use has been, however, that players who don't like death penalties in ARPGs detest regression mechanics. People who like trying out HC much less so.

For some reason the latter just seem to think games get broken if there are no regression mechanics even though 'zerging problems' can be addressed otherwise. See, I wouldn't mind if the whole f*cking game shut down upon death for six hours, as long as I don't need to redo the same process over and over again each time a damage spike gets me. It's nothing but a mindless grind which has been made even worse last time they 'reworked' it. I imagine it goes the same way for players generally who don't like regression mechanics.

I don't know, maybe my stance will change once I get a new gaming rig to replace my current potato. We'll see. After all, a man should be able to revaluate his views in life. This is how I feel about high end leveling in this game right now -it somehow reminds me of old-school text-based MUDs where leveling up at the highest levels required staring the same text screen for hours and hours, tediously writing the same commands and waiting for the same respawns of monsters. Sure, it also was 'a challenge' to some players, who were such junkies they didn't mind turning a text-based grinding game into a workplace.

You don't need those last 5 levels. They wont make your build suddenly some uber destroyer, it is all an illusion you make in your head.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Fuck it, let's just Konmari the whole mess. If it doesn't spark joy, REMOVE IT.

I admit I had to check "Konmari" on Google...
Damn I failed my nerdiness check, I think I deserve to lose experience. :-D

If leveling is the only thing you care about maybe you should play a different game.

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

If leveling is the only thing you care about maybe you should play a different game.

If leveling isn't important than it shouldn't exist in the game.

They already agreed it is not important, 5 less levels wont break your character or even affect him that much. Its all about the perceived value of the levels, not their real value.

I think GGG is going to be a whole lot more relaxed about gameplay criticism since Blizzard went off the rails.

Maybe that will help with any changes...

A suprising amount of posters could be replaced by pretty short shell scripts :)

if (post.text.contains("Death penalty") and post.text.contains("negative")) then begin
IgnoreAllOtherTextIn(post);
PretendAuthorDidNotMakeAnySuggestionsIn(post);
IgnoreAnyArgumentsIn(post);
Answer("Deth pennalty gud!");
end;
if (ListOfObnoxiousForumTrolls.Contains(self)) then begin
Answer("Git gud");
AttackAndDerideAuthor();
end;

Never really gave my opinion about Trigger gems before.
But the topic is interesting and I would like to share simple facts. by In my opinion and by pure math they should be nerfed or totally removed from game. Why you ask?

As I know trigger gems have cooldown of 150ms, thats over 6 casts per second. Lets get an example:

1)Get an attack that perfom quick hits to have at least 6 hits per second - there are many skills that do that with 0 investment, where most of them have like 40% dmg efficiency (remember that part)

2)Get a trigger gem - lets say CoC - it give around +40% more dmg

3)Get a spell that is by itself slow - lets say 1 second - but powerfull on the other hand

Now this combination (on crit build ofc) give you possiblity to cast 6 spells per second. Well GGG and most of community doesnt see a problem in this.
Next step, in order to see the problem easier, is to imagine the bonuses of the combination in reverse order. Again step by step.

1)Get a spell that is 1 sec slow but powerfull - 100% base damage

2)Get COC - it gives to that spell +40% more dmg - no problem, bonus like regular support

3)Link a fast attack with 6 attack per second like before - HERE YOU GET 600% MORE CAST SPEED TO YOUR MAIN SPELL in one gem. This is exactly how trigger stuff works and gets its power from. Its not about scaling your attack, its about getting free 600% more cast speed. This is overpowered to maximum comparing to other gems.

Now lets back to the "40% dmg effectivness" - this statistic was added to prevent scaling of fast attack skills because like GGG spoted before - it was scaling to high and was unbalanced. Congratz for GGG for spoting that, BUT why they forgot about scaling everything that is linked to that attack with this ratio?

On the other hand, even with skill scaling it would be still OP, since you take 40% dmg of other skill still times 6, so 240% dmg.

All trigger gems should be changed to "trigger per cast", meaning that you must invest in attack speed to get power from it.

The same should be done with other "on hit" effect, because they basicaly follow the same flawed design. All "on hit" effect are the next major balance problem. They should be buffed in numbers, but reduced to "on cast" or "on use of skill".