3.15 is alright, for people who know what to do. Casuals or part-timers, the worst patch ever
" The same if not more can be said about the people who just continue to play the game and take no real issue with the changes. The only time I’m on the forum is when I’m commuting to and from work, bored and unable to play. Or else I would be putting my time into the game not the forums. Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfSWYPXd9prVxf5v_DoqtIQ
Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/snoobae85 |
|
" Are you deliberately not reading what you reply to? Or, do you have AutoReplierBot 3000 installed on your comp? |
|
" I have to say that this change kinda baffles me. Don't get me wrong, though. I stil prefer not having to piano flasks. But if an ailment is applied to you and then automatically removed, why have it in the first place? EDIT: NVM. I suppose the choice is between ailment immunity (limited and for some of them, anyway) and proactive defences/buffs. That kinda does make sense, now that I think about it. Last edited by QuiquePoE#3190 on Aug 6, 2021, 10:56:07 PM
|
|
"Exactly lol People see this as a Flask nerf but in actuality the addition of these orbs was a handholding mechanic so you dont have to play the game. It was actually a buff, regardless of base charges being nerfed and charges gained being nerfed (and lets be real here, charge gain is virtually unchanged, thats exactly what chris meant by "we halved it and it was still plentiful"). It made no sense to me when they were added haha. Big mistake on GGGs part imo. Gonna be problematic in the future, playing flaskfinder right now is absolutely nutters. Harvest sucks! But look at my decked out gear two weeks in! Labyrinth salt farm miner. "But my build diversity" , "Game is too hard!" - Meta drone playing the same 1-3 builds for years. Last edited by Tin_Foil_Hat#0111 on Aug 7, 2021, 12:30:20 AM
|
|
|
Honestly this league mechanic is the most casual friendly one we got since a long time and it is also good for people great at crafting. This league is imho a bit arsh on some archetypes, like crit for example but overall it is by miles more enjoyable than 3.14 . There are lots of incidental currency drops and on top of that the map device is self explanatory this time. I mean you put ritual on there you print currencies, and maps are not even expensive for the players who don't know how to sustain yet.
|
|
" Valid point, but if you look just at the numbers, there are more who arent happy with current patch. |
|
" What numbers? Steam charts? The one that shows the number of players (not %) consistently drop by same amount? If you didnt notice yet, the number of players dropping out is always relatively the same despite what was the starting point. Higher starting point > higher player count after a month. |
|
" I'm not really sure what you're trying to say there? That it doesn't matter what the starting point is or what the proportion of lost players is? I would think it would be a reasonable conclusion to draw that more players initially starting demonstrates more customers interested in and willing to try your product. Additionally, after two weeks the greater proportion of players still engaging with your product likely represents better customer satisfaction. Customers that enjoy your product and engage with it longer are more likely to be paying customers. So yes, these data points are all important and have significance. Ritual Start - 157,103 Day 15 - 97,093 Lost - 60,010 % lost - 38.2% Ultimatum Start - 154,917 Day 15 - 85,558 Lost - 69,359 % lost - 44.8% Expedition Start - 116,240 Day 15 - 48,162 Lost - 68,078 % lost - 58.6% Last edited by Aldora_the_Summoner#4021 on Aug 7, 2021, 8:09:40 AM
|
|
" It about the same number of players that quit. Its like the same people do it. GGG said in the past that many quit when they hit maps so just after act 10 and they are done. Maybe its them? Who knows but the number is always about 55-65k. Leagues that come out with expansion have better retention by about 10k players. It was always like this. The only thing thats different is starting point. |
|
" I wouldn't consider the league volume loss in isolation of other data to be a good indicator of anything to be honest. You seem to be making a determination that X volume of players will always leave the league within the first couple of weeks, regardless of the volume that start but it seems illogical that a single set of data would remain constant while other related data changes. Looking at a larger sample size and we start to see some variance in the data and some examples that don't match with your model. Synthesis Start - 112,505 Day 15 - 52,614 Lost - 59,891 % lost - 53.2% Legion Start - 114,336 Day 15 - 67,084 Lost - 47,252 % lost - 41.3% Blight Start - 74,930 Day 15 - 38,668 Lost - 36,262 % lost - 48.4% Metamorph Start - 115,957 Day 15 - 83,074 Lost - 32,883 % lost - 28.4% Delirium Start - 133,357 Day 15 - 80,709 Lost - 52,648 % lost - 39.5% Harvest Start - 126,680 Day 15 - 63,026 Lost - 63,654 % lost - 50.2% Heist Start - 122,094 Day 15 - 69,399 Lost - 52,695 % lost - 43.2% Ritual Start - 157,103 Day 15 - 97,093 Lost - 60,010 % lost - 38.2% Ultimatum Start - 154,917 Day 15 - 85,558 Lost - 69,359 % lost - 44.8% Expedition Start - 116,240 Day 15 - 48,162 Lost - 68,078 % lost - 58.6% Gee, for all the hate that Synthesis received, when looking at the stats, Blight was a stinker of a league! Or was it? Of the last 10 leagues it has by far the lowest opening day numbers and roughly 35% lower than the opening numbers for the previous league, Legion. By day 15 though it had only lost around 36k players so by your model, that makes it a success? Well of course not, it couldn't afford to lose 60k players because it started at a much lower point. It still lost around 48% of it's players by then so it's definitely on the lower side performance wise. I think the above 4 stats when considered in concert provide us a much better insight into whether a league was initially well received and was successful in retaining players for longer. Certainly, the volume of players still playing is I think the second most important statistic behind the starting number. If we exclude Ritual and Ultimatum as outliers in the data then Expedition's starting point is middle of the road in the last 10 leagues, but it's loss rate far exceeds any other league. I think we absolutely must consider Ritual and Ultimatum though as it demonstrates through back to back performance that Path of Exile was able to connect with a large volume of players and do a reasonable job of retaining them. Objectively Metamorph was one of the most successful leagues in the last 2 years. Start numbers were around the average and retention was outstanding by day 15 of the league. In the context of the last ten leagues I think it's very reasonable to draw the conclusion that the changes to the game with this league deterred a good 40k players that engaged with the previous leagues, and the actual gaming experience for many of those that did start the league was poorer than in any previous league. There are still around 48k people playing the league so obviously not everyone has been deterred from playing. Many players are able to continue playing as they previously have or with relatively minor adjustments due to several factors. Where the game goes to from here will only become clearer in another 3 month's time. So this data tends to support the author's original contention. The expert level players can manage but it's been awful for others. That doesn't make one group better or worse than the other, or more worthy of a particular game style. I personally think it just highlights that GGG really should have invested a lot more time in testing (not just using 'expert' players) and probably spent a lot more time in addressing the balance so more changes were made that resulted in a better experience for everyone. |
|
