A small thought on what is wrong with the game's development vision

"

Nubatron wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

Listen it's fine to disagree with me, but it doesnt make anything I said less true concept wise. GGG is trying do design and appeal to conflicting playerbases and revenues streams at the same time, and its polarizing everything they do and say.

It came to a head, largely I think during harvest, and its been festering ever since.

It's an untenable situation, and I don't know if Chris can go to Tencent (the actual owners) with these dramatic reductions in players and revenue in the name of some sort of developmental purity concept. That shipped sailed.

Zero. That is how much we know about the business arrangement with Tencent. For all we know, the agreement includes autonomy of development as long as they get to distribute a modified version of it within China.. There was an interview at one point where Chris either explicitly stated or implied that he has complete control over the direction of the development. I don't recall the exact words.

Now that might be a verbal agreement, or it could be written into the sale.

I suspect that Tencent is making a killing in China with their P2W model no matter what they do with the global market.

But like I said, we know pretty much nothing about that business arrangement and have assumed a lot because of the void of knowledge.

Well we do know at least that Chris said during a livestream they cannot sustain the 3.15 performance business wise for multiple concurrent leagues.

I suppose take what you will from that.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

Well we do know at least that Chris said during a livestream they cannot sustain the 3.15 performance business wise for multiple concurrent leagues.

I suppose take what you will from that.

I take that to mean they have a hard decision to make. Water down the game to be what they don't want it to be, or lay off some people. Like I said, it's a lose/lose for them if things continue on this course.

But they really only have one choice. If they bend to the will of a portion of the community that hates the changes, and turn back, then the portion of the community that liked the changes will have a template to force GGG's hand as well. Just boycott and throw tantrums and create toxicity at every turn to try to get them to reverse course again.

Simply put, giving in is the worst option on the table, even if it includes the need to fire people. They'll end up having to fire the people anyway and have lost control of their development to the whining masses.

"

Nubatron wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

Well we do know at least that Chris said during a livestream they cannot sustain the 3.15 performance business wise for multiple concurrent leagues.

I suppose take what you will from that.

I take that to mean they have a hard decision to make. Water down the game to be what they don't want it to be, or lay off some people. Like I said, it's a lose/lose for them if things continue on this course.

But they really only have one choice. If they bend to the will of a portion of the community that hates the changes, and turn back, then the portion of the community that liked the changes will have a template to force GGG's hand as well. Just boycott and throw tantrums and create toxicity at every turn to try to get them to reverse course again.

Simply put, giving in is the worst option on the table, even if it includes the need to fire people. They'll end up having to fire the people anyway and have lost control of their development to the whining masses.

Well this is a much more reasonable post, mostly in alignment with what I said originally.

Where we differ is that you think they are willing to stand their development ground at the cost of millions of dollars and employee staff levels, where I think this wont be "allowed".

In the meantime you are going to have these "clutch your pearls" moments as two different kinds of players clash.

That being said I will be interested to see the following couple of leagues performances and how GGG reacts. Their hand might be forced in the next 6-9 months.

"

trixxar wrote:

You are half right which is often more dangerous than not being right at all.

Consider early in PoE development, if you found something on the ground with hp, resists, maybe one offensive mod, it was conceivably something that you could keep through the endgame.

Fast forward to today, to find something you would use through endgame, what are the chances? Almost zero.

RNG has stayed the same but GGG has built the game around pretty high level items, due to crafting from delve, essences, influenced mods, even Harvest.

So while RNG has always been there, where you you used to have a 1/200 shot of finding a useful drop, now maybe its 1/10,000. RNG has moved against you finding good drops on the ground.

When you add in you need it drop from influenced items, now maybe its 1/20,000.

The game has fundamentally moved away from anyone using RNG-acquired loot to play endgame.

I'll start by underlining the contradiction of your perspective. If you agree that RNG hasn't really changed then it's not the thing that is moving. The odds and outcomes were always there whether you needed them as upgrades or not. What has changed and moved is the accessibility of powerful items through crafting and the standard by which we consider items "good". The average is now pushed far closer to the perfection of items than was ever possible before and that's arguably not healthy for the game if accessed too quickly.

So if the game has fundamentally moved away from the viability/value of RNG items, which hasn't changed, and that game now has a problem then one should begin to realize that the nature of the problem is not actually RNG.

Now, that isn't to say that crafting and deterministic outcomes is bad or wrong for the game as a whole. It arguably more a question of what degree is healthy for the game, but also I think it ultimately needs a more sophisticated solution beyond just that.

For example, I've always thought that dark shrines were one of the coolest mechanic that GGG ever did because any random item with a high tier affix suddenly had value. That kind of item sacrificing tied back into crafting would curb its power and turn drops into part of the resources needed to do it.

"

trixxar wrote:

Secondly, players do have differing opinions, some are short sighted, but to actively ignore them means basically you don't care if your game survives at all.

What Chris WIlson's vision for PoE was, where you spam exalts on gear all day hoping for 2 hp/sec, or 10 life gain on kill, etc. we are clearly not playing that game.

No one suggest GGG simply take all player suggestions wholesale, that would be the second worst option. The only worse one is to silo themselves in from any feedback and criticism and build something no one but Chris wants to play. At least the first option would be interestly chaotic and goofy.

Its not a binary choice. Obey player / ignore players is a false argument.

The analogy I use to explain how the developer/player relationship should be is that of doctor/patient. GGG listens to feedback as a sign of symptoms, but not as a diagnosis or treatment. They aren't ignoring you outright, but they aren't going to cater to your demands either.

Also, I think its hilarious all the people repeating the hyperbole about spamming exalts for crafting and how out of touch he is with the players as if it wasn't his vision or at least decision for every crafting option already in the game today. Plus, is anyone really going to tell me there is another developer out there that is a bigger nerd of their game than Chris Wilson is of PoE? The man was literally meme'ed because he had to be kicked off long podcast once so the hosts could do the after interview opinions and thoughts.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

Dont be sad, I agree with you actually. There are plenty of small games, low played, low hyped games. I love many of these.

But that's not the direction GGG went. These are all self inflicted development wounds. They are trying to correct but dont want to lose money or players for the time the spent moving in the larger appeal direction.

GGG would have been much better off, concept wise, if they remained true to their orginal concepts & values. Unfortunately you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube without significant business consequences.

Yeah, they are forcing some of the toothpaste back into the tube, and they did even calculate in some of the consequences. But, as PoE is an ever-progressing game, they're bound to squeeze some more out in the future.

But yes, the bathroom is full of toothpaste mess, both here and there.

"

MrSparkle001 wrote:

The problem with the game's development vision:

"Let's add more RNG on top of more RNG, because everyone loves gambling right? Right?"

This.

chris has said several times that he believes players like "chase" items, when what he means is that people like winning the lottery.
he simply doesnt understand what a chase item actually is.

chase items require a deterministic way to aquire them... not simply a "more lucky" way to get them.

farming blood aquiduct for cards does not make a tabula a "chase item". it makes it a grind.

Oni-Goroshi is a chase item. kill hillock enough, it will drop. randomly farming its 27 cards is not "chasing" it.



also, the huge fuckup that is item quality levels. at level 1, you can get the best gear you can ever get. because literally the range of things that can drop is fixed and small and massively deterministic to the point where you can grab just about anything and its decent.

but every time you level up, you just add more crap to the pool and thin out the whole thing, making leveling past level 5 only get harder and harder, and dumber, because you are almost completely unlikely to find anything of use.

instead, you have to farm crap for currency, then sell it, then find someone selling what you need, the exact opposit of a useful loot system.

"

Hackusations wrote:

If you agree that RNG hasn't really changed then it's not the thing that is moving. The odds and outcomes were always there whether you needed them as upgrades or not. What has changed and moved is the accessibility of powerful items through crafting and the standard by which we consider items "good". The average is now pushed far closer to the perfection of items than was ever possible before and that's arguably not healthy for the game if accessed too quickly.

So if the game has fundamentally moved away from the viability/value of RNG items, which hasn't changed, and that game now has a problem then one should begin to realize that the nature of the problem is not actually RNG.

No argument there, but if the devs are building content around GG items (which we both agree dont come from RNG) then removing deterministic crafting without adjusting that content is not going to be fun for your players.

3.15 player counts, I believe, prove this argument quite directly.

We are both saying "Crafting made GG items more accessible" regardless of whether that is good or bad.

I am also saying "Devs are now balancing around GG items, while Chris is attacking the crafting that has been making them possible".

The problem, if you agree with the analysis, is rather obvious.

If you are used to a 10 damage sword, fighting a monster with power level 10, then the devs hand you a 200 damage sword, you destroy content, so they make monster power level 200. Then they come back and say "oh, we over-buffed you, here is a 50 damage sword"

That is not a good system.

Do you disagree on some major part of that?

Like do you think Maven and Sirus AL8 are meant to be killed with gear from 2.1 or 3.1?

"

Hackusations wrote:

The analogy I use to explain how the developer/player relationship should be is that of doctor/patient. GGG listens to feedback as a sign of symptoms, but not as a diagnosis or treatment. They aren't ignoring you outright, but they aren't going to cater to your demands either.

Again, actually strongly agree with this.

But being a nerd for the game doesnt mean you are in touch with players.

I wouldnt want Mathil designing the game either, or Jungroan, or steelmage. They are not playing at a normal level. I have no idea if Chris is 1/100th as good as them at the game, but being invested doesnt mean you understand the average experience.

In some ways, it probably means you understand it LESS than normal players.

A summary of my TLDR thoughts:

1. I agree with not all games designed to satisfy ALL gamers, but if GGG want more gamers, GGG should tackle changes on "POPULATION" instead of "NO LIFERS", there are give and takes in life which we need to choose

2. I am not trying to make PoE the same as other MMO, as PoE is unique in its own way, which is why we play, had gone into the path ots "UNPLAYABLE" to "NORMAL" players.

3. Unplayable equips: People keep mentioning about chase items, so what is a chase item? A unique piece? A super well crafted rare? This is exactly the point of my "I CAN'T SEE HOW TO PROGRESS" frustration in normal player. We either cant identify which or how to upgrade, or the required pieces are "SO EXPENSIVE AND UNACCESSIBLE", due to the limited time we have for gaming.

4. Unplayable time: As I mentioned, unlike other MOST games, we are given time to progress at our own pace, not this do it in 1 month (because leagues are almost dead after that) style of game play. How MANY contents are getting from PoE? Sooo many that an average player couldn't even do all of them, and they are adding MORE AND MORE content! This is like keep adding coffee into the cup without ever considering the cup size!

5. Unplayable class: Due to the time constraint mentioned above, players are scared to try new things, not to say these unstable nerfs/buffs/complete mechanic changes. We have 100+ skills in the game, but how can a normal player play them? We are too scared to even change our build every league because of the learning time investment and scared of build failure, which waste our time, and there goes the league. And this is also why the NERFS hit normal players so hard!

A classic example: I am toxic rain raider this league, wanna try a cyclone build next league. Ah shit, it doesn't works, lets go back toxic rain. SHIT IT HAD BEEN NERFED!

6. Goal: I strongly disagree with the statement of which "the thought of player wanting to go into end game definitely is wrong". If i don't want to experience everything, why do I play? I wouldn't buy a final fantasy series and say "Hey, it's a good opening cutscene, I'm satisfied, next move on to the next game!". This game keep demoralize player in terms of meeting the goal, in terms of nerfing "Deterministic Crafting" which is one of the key to reach there, being unstable with builds due to frequent changes every few months, all these hinders player progression, we see NO HOPE!

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

Nubatron wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

Well we do know at least that Chris said during a livestream they cannot sustain the 3.15 performance business wise for multiple concurrent leagues.

I suppose take what you will from that.

I take that to mean they have a hard decision to make. Water down the game to be what they don't want it to be, or lay off some people. Like I said, it's a lose/lose for them if things continue on this course.

But they really only have one choice. If they bend to the will of a portion of the community that hates the changes, and turn back, then the portion of the community that liked the changes will have a template to force GGG's hand as well. Just boycott and throw tantrums and create toxicity at every turn to try to get them to reverse course again.

Simply put, giving in is the worst option on the table, even if it includes the need to fire people. They'll end up having to fire the people anyway and have lost control of their development to the whining masses.

Well this is a much more reasonable post, mostly in alignment with what I said originally.

Where we differ is that you think they are willing to stand their development ground at the cost of millions of dollars and employee staff levels, where I think this wont be "allowed".

In the meantime you are going to have these "clutch your pearls" moments as two different kinds of players clash.

That being said I will be interested to see the following couple of leagues performances and how GGG reacts. Their hand might be forced in the next 6-9 months.

Srry to interefere, I just want to remind about whats Development stands for. And that thing: when you start do cut and throw away things from progect you developed before and it worked well (and numbers showed that), so then it might considered to be called as killing that project, means anti-development, regress. Sadly its not actually rare thing. Even civilizations done this to themselves, actually, many of them. This is the meaning of "stand the test of time" phrase.

Cheers.

"

Nubatron wrote:

I take that to mean they have a hard decision to make. Water down the game to be what they don't want it to be, or lay off some people. Like I said, it's a lose/lose for them if things continue on this course.

Going back to 3.13 philosophy can hardly be called watering the game down. To undo a terribly-received design change isn't a lose scenario, it's - from a business perspective - the most common-sense solution.

In any other industry, if a product change led to a 30 % decrease in sales (even 5 %), that change would get undone at the first possible opportunity and no one would bat an eye. It is done all the time, and it's the most normal way products are handled. The shortest 'change - sales down - revert' cycle I have seen was a week, where a money lending company slightly altered the parameters of it's core online loan over a weekend, had a 12 % sales drop on that product in the following week, and reverted the change the next weekend.

"

Nubatron wrote:

But they really only have one choice. If they bend to the will of a portion of the community that hates the changes, and turn back, then the portion of the community that liked the changes will have a template to force GGG's hand as well. Just boycott and throw tantrums and create toxicity at every turn to try to get them to reverse course again.

It's not about who throws a tantrum, but how many people actually consume the product - people throwing tantrums have minimal effect on that, player satisfaction does. That there's a lot of negative feedback on something is the result of decreased player satisfaction, not the other way around. And satisfaction with the product is one of the most important long-term metrics.

Out of curiosity, I took from steamdb the daily peak numbers, and averaged them out over the entire league lifetimes, and the averages are:
Heist - 37.2k
Ritual - 54.9k
Ultimatum - 43.4k
Expedition - 30.7k (using the peak from 2021-10-12 as a value for all days up to the day before the next league launch to make the comparison fair, in reality, they are likely to be lower than that)

That's a huge customer loss since Ritual and there's even a good reasoning for it:
1) Ritual added a lot of power into crafted items (maven orb), added a sort-of deterministic way to get them (harvest), and made crafting materials more accessible (fractured map farming; atlas passives)
2) Ultimatum kept the power in items; nerfed the hell out of that sort-of deterministic way to get them; and heavily nerfed the high-end ways of getting crafting currency. That made lategame items practically unobtainable for a large part of the playerbase. Did this cause the 21 % player loss over the whole league? Not all of it, but surely some of it.
3) Expedition kept the power in items, but heavily nerfed other sources of power - mainly flasks and support gems. Has this caused the another 29 % average player loss compared to Ultimatum? Yes, it clearly has.

"

Nubatron wrote:

Simply put, giving in is the worst option on the table, even if it includes the need to fire people. They'll end up having to fire the people anyway and have lost control of their development to the whining masses.

That's not how the creative entertainment industry works, which is where PoE belongs.

First of all, once the downsizing starts, employees start feeling insecure about the positions, which leads to some of the best people leaving (the best people always leave first). The specific problem to a creative industry is that you can't replace someone who's great at a creative job with 10 average Joes, no matter how much training the Joes get. Very few people have the creative talent to make something great, and they are extremely difficult to find.

Second of all, downsizing of the workforce means downsizing of the product scope - PoE2 gets canceled (or postponed indefinitely), the product (future leagues) start being worse than the old ones, new skills are even more extreme on the OP/garbage scale...etc

And most important, third of all, gaming communities move in trends - as of 3.15, PoE is on a strong negative trend, which is accompanied by heavy losses to the company goodwill. If the product gets downsized, this trend will continue, because people always notice the product becoming worse, and some more will quit, and the trend continues. In the worst-case scenario, it continues until the game stops being profitable to maintain. And downward trends are extremely difficult to get out of in gaming, because unlike physical products, games cannot rebrand to reset the goodwill.