GGG at the Crossroads

"

innervation wrote:

Are casuals the target audience of a 3.5 hour podcast?

Yes when there's the expectation of streamers and "content creators" to filter the information into small pieces. Like the megathread with the recap pinned to the top of it.

Anyway, have this humorous image that was shared with me [Removed by Support]

"

kiadaw wrote:

There is a sweet spot between too grindy & too casual

And this "sweet spot" is 100% subjective, and can't be measured by any metrics. YOU feel it's tipping towards "too grindy", others don't.

"

Shagsbeard wrote:

They've been at this "crossroads" for about 5 years now.

Five and a half, I guess.

"

Phrazz wrote:

"

kiadaw wrote:

There is a sweet spot between too grindy & too casual

And this "sweet spot" is 100% subjective, and can't be measured by any metrics. YOU feel it's tipping towards "too grindy", others don't.

Well, the thing about this 100% subjective, can't be measured by any metrics type of thing (we call that nominal in statistics) is that there are numerous things that can be used to infer this type of information. Players will often give feedback on whatever platforms you use to communicate, in this case Reddit and the forums.

I recall a dev manifesto that is overflowing with people's subjective opinions on a certain change within the game. Player metrics are usually a lagging indicator in terms of changes in that by the time player metrics are affected, there's a momentum of animus and word-of-mouth sentiment among the playerbase that would need to be overcome by any other changes. You would have to overcome that before player metrics once again shift in the other direction. It'll lag behind whatever change you make.

But, this underlines the point here. Not just the person you quoted felt it was too grindy. Plenty of other people felt it was too grindy. In fact, the vast majority of casuals are put off by the changes that make the game more hardcore. Hence the current state of things. Hence GGG being at the crossroads in terms of who to cater towards.

"

Tsokushin wrote:

Hence GGG being at the crossroads in terms of who to cater towards.

Sure. But you also have to admit that no matter where they set the bar, some people will find it too low, others will find it too high.

I just like how they are going to solve this. A lot of the feedback this league, was that the damage nerfs made atlas progression indirectly slower. I like that they are keeping the nerfs, but are shortening the atlas grind directly. Seems like a good choice.

The reason I answered what I did, was that the post I quoted made it seem like a game being "grindy" is a negative thing, while comparing it to D3. Every game doesn't have to be equally grindy. It's OK for some games to be more grindy that others. It's OK for some games to be casual. It's OK for some games to cater to certain crowds. Every game in the world doesn't have to cater to as many people as possible.

"

Phrazz wrote:

Sure. But you also have to admit that no matter where they set the bar, some people will find it too low, others will find it too high.

I just like how they are going to solve this. A lot of the feedback this league, was that the damage nerfs made atlas progression indirectly slower. I like that they are keeping the nerfs, but are shortening the atlas grind directly. Seems like a good choice.

I have long maintained that it's not hard to cater to both complaints on the bar location. There is a way to lower the bar for the people that complain the bar is too high while simultaneously introduce new peaks that cater to the people that complain the bar is too low. One way is a blending of the strata of the playerbase into something more resembling spectrum rather than just casual and hardcore. The other is actually splitting the playerbase which is what they're opting to do here in "hardmode".

Both are solutions that are neither simple nor fast, and entirely against their 3 month release schedule so far. And implementing it piecewise instead of as a full coherent system will just feel bad, the same way the nerfs setting the stage for PoE2 felt bad because it's missing all the synergistic elements of the full PoE2 system. Implementation piecewise is also missing out on the honeymoon phase of a full complete system dropping at once where people explore it, before it's optimized to death.

"

It's OK for some games to be casual. It's OK for some games to cater to certain crowds. Every game in the world doesn't have to cater to as many people as possible.

I agree. It's just picking one side or the other here will come with "side effects". Ultimately, I'm sure GGG doesn't want to go back to developing the game in a small rental office with far fewer employees. But that's one of the side effects of catering to a smaller slice of your playerbase.

You'll ultimately have to "rightsize" for the player population you're catering to.

"

Tsokushin wrote:

I have long maintained that it's not hard to cater to both complaints on the bar location.

In my eyes, they are currently doing so.

But what makes this balance really hard, is that certain players will always complain as long as they feel locked out of something based on time investment. And not based on a 3 month league. Nono, if they don't reach certain thresholds within days or a week, they start to complain.

The great lie, that this game is catered towards the infamous "1%" is getting tiresome in here, when the truth is that maybe 1% of the game is catered towards the infamous "1%" of players. But as long as that 1% of the game feels unreachable to them, the whining will never stop. And by whining, I'm refering to players unable to give proper feedback without sounding like a kid who's lost his lolipop on the ground.

I do however, agree that the grind has become a little bit long, without any good reason. They are listening to feedback here, which is a good thing, as players in both camps have been pretty much agreeing on this point. The game isn't becoming "easier", though; only shorter. But some "dead weight" is gone, which is a good thing.

Dedicated players have T17, 18 and 19 delirium maps. They have deep delves. They will "soon" get "Über Timless Conflicts". The amount of content here isn't that much. The rest of us have ten acts, hundreds of maps and much more.

"

Phrazz wrote:

In my eyes, they are currently doing so.

But what makes this balance really hard, is that certain players will always complain as long as they feel locked out of something based on time investment. And not based on a 3 month league. Nono, if they don't reach certain thresholds within days or a week, they start to complain.

The great lie, that this game is catered towards the infamous "1%" is getting tiresome in here, when the truth is that maybe 1% of the game is catered towards the infamous "1%" of players. But as long as that 1% of the game feels unreachable to them, the whining will never stop. And by whining, I'm refering to players unable to give proper feedback without sounding like a kid who's lost his lolipop on the ground.

We will disagree here because I think most of the people complaining about the "bar being too high" are the most disappointed with deterministic methods being phased out of the game. And it was the people that complained about the "bar being too low" that enjoy that being phased out. There's an inherent split in the playerbase from this fact alone.

But your next point brings more contention. You claim that they complain about "not getting what they want now". I wager they complain about RNG progression. Maps not dropping, tons of complaints over multiple leagues about that. Exalts not dropping, tons of complaints spanning multiple leagues about that. And this is a big one following the "close your eyes and exalt" from the manifesto.

To whom does the RNG cater to except the 1%? Especially when everyone that wasn't 1% wanted harvest to remain?

No, the great lie of this game is that you can make whatever build you want, push to whatever limit you want to set for yourself. The truth is that you can only push as far as RNG will gift you to go. I use this example a lot, but imagine if instead of getting a passive point every level or choosing where it goes, it's randomly allocated. People would literally stop playing when rng screws them out of a planned/potential build.

Now, RNG can be tied to time here in your example as it's a numbers game, pull the lever enough times and you have a higher chance of getting what you want, but such a thing is never guaranteed. But the one system that heavily alleviated this RNG factor was gutted.

Now you say that dedicated players don't have much content. I agree after the endgame nerfs to fractured maps etc. But they're getting uber encounters along with the potential of a hard mode here.

But, to call a significant portion of the playerbase "dead weight" is extremely dangerous. Especially in an RNG/trade economy based game, the fewer the participants, the worse it's going to feel. Unless they have plans to reintroduce more deterministic progression (not likely) or uptune RNG to be far more favorable (also not likely) a lower population is far worse.

"

Tsokushin wrote:

But, to call a significant portion of the playerbase "dead weight" is extremely dangerous. Especially in an RNG/trade economy based game, the fewer the participants, the worse it's going to feel. Unless they have plans to reintroduce more deterministic progression (not likely) or uptune RNG to be far more favorable (also not likely) a lower population is far worse.

I was calling the unnecessary Watchstone farm "dead weigth", as they might be cutting that farm in half next league. Wan't refering to players here.

The rest of your post I pretty much disagree with, especially your needless hyperboling regarding Harvest, and who wanted it to remain.

"

Phrazz wrote:

I was calling the unnecessary Watchstone farm "dead weigth", as they might be cutting that farm in half next league. Wan't refering to players here.

The rest of your post I pretty much disagree with, especially your needless hyperboling regarding Harvest, and who wanted it to remain.

That was my mistake then. I'll agree on toning down the atlas grind which is already on top of the unveil grind, the maven grind, etc etc.

As for the rest of the post, that's on you. You claim it's complaints about not getting instant gratification. I claim it's complaints stemming from too much RNG. If only GGG could do an experiment where incremental deterministic progression were possible gear-wise.

As for the people who wanted harvest to remain, the dev manifesto just last month still had people posting. Reddit front page still has people posting about it. If that's not evidence, then I do not know what constitutes evidence in your eyes.