It seems like the time to remove the resist penalty and xp on death

I don't think much of having lvl 100 as a chase goal. I just think the xp penalty is poorly designed and implented. When I see max level chars I see players who either grind a lot of 'safe' content or can play 50-100 ex for carries. Nothing more, nothing less. It is like seeing a d3 player with max paragon, kind of nice, but not something I want to do.

If the xp penalty is designed to slow players leveling then it doesn't affect people that don't die. If it supposed to help players find the builds it didn't communicate anything meaningful. If ggg wanted to slow the leveling process they would adjust the numbers as they have done in the past.

Honestly I wish it was more of a chase goal, maybe it gives confetti or something. Maybe Kirac gives you a hug or high five.

Reaching level 100 being so tedious just feels like a vestige of very early game design. Back when C Wilson was boosting about making an eternal endless game to investors. If players hit max level, then why would they play any more, (this being before maps and atlas.) I have been reading their manifestos and they obviously care a lot about player leveling rate, they keep adjusting it to take more. Some patches increased the xp needed between 99-100 by 40%.

Dying isn't a thing to whine over, sure. The games other systems already do a decent job of punishing 'careless' play. A lot of threads QQing about dying complain more about defense and monster design than losing xp.

The point of the XP penalty isn't to slow players its to provide a penalty for failure in a game with very few such mechanics. Players rail against it constantly but usually refuse to accept that if its frustrates them its actually working as intended. Its a tool to push players to iterate and improve, one GGG have gotten extremely poor at incidentally based on the types of builds people play now but still :p

However some players would rather quit than improve or change and that is a cost GGG have to be willing to pay, but everything about their stance of the years suggests they are.

On a side note those systems are old now though and I feel like most of the design intent of core gameplay systems has changed so much over time that the solutions no longer feel fit for purpose. The easy access to XP multiplier content and ever increasing glass cannon makes SC look like ultra SC now. The result of that is that the xp penalty actually operates more as a poor tax than as a gameplay driver for improvement.

To state that more simply years ago 100 was pretty indicative of a player who was relatively competent with a developed build and some dedication to the task. About the biggest shortcuts were getting fed resources or the comparatively rare access to a bitchboi. 100 in SSF still has this going for it really.

Now 100 tells me someone participated in a rota, I can't actually tell anything else they could be unbelievable players or absolute shit and the same for their builds. This leads players to the idea that its unfair, because solo poors have hoops to jump through and rota participants only have one which is can I afford? That's bound to create salt.

Plenty of those players should just not give a shit though, comparison the death of happiness and all that.

"

Draegnarrr wrote:

Players rail against it constantly but usually refuse to accept that if its frustrates them its actually working as intended. Its a tool to push players to iterate and improve

Indeed, but you have to pick "correct" build from the start, to be able to iterate at all. For example, I am perfectly aware that my current char needs more max res and more phys taken as ele to not die. But I cannot afford space for it without scrapping whole build. Dmg taken I can fit in, currently farm stuff to craft better chest piece, but max res is just beyond capacity here.

Situations like this are what I called build disparity before. Without PoB to fine-tune stats all the way to lvl 100 and knowing your future eHP and dps already by the time of creating lvl 1 char, playing this game is masochism.

That char was created before AN went core, so I never planned for max res on it, and it worked more or less ok. After AN I die several times more often :)

"

Echothesis wrote:

Indeed, but you have to pick "correct" build from the start, to be able to iterate at all. For example, I am perfectly aware that my current char needs more max res and more phys taken as ele to not die. But I cannot afford space for it without scrapping whole build. Dmg taken I can fit in, currently farm stuff to craft better chest piece, but max res is just beyond capacity here.

Situations like this are what I called build disparity before. Without PoB to fine-tune stats all the way to lvl 100 and knowing your future eHP and dps already by the time of creating lvl 1 char, playing this game is masochism.

If you wanted to spin it in a negative way, then yes you are correct.
If you wanted to spin it in a positive way, then you are incorrect.

What this provides is a choice. If all builds performed the exact same way none of those build choices would matter. It would merely define the visual effects your are using to kill things and thats about it.
The game has been in the above mentioned state for years and I didnt like that at all. I knew I would easily beat the entire game without spending any thought whatsoever on what I was going to play. It simply didnt matter.


While I can understand why some players might prefer this, this wasnt how PoE used to be when I started playing the game some 8 years ago and therefore Im glad this changed back to what it used to be.

Its not all negative. Its merely about your preferences and not nearly as bad or impactful as you are trying to paint it. The death penalty does offer something I like and you dont.
Doesnt mean Im right and you are wrong, it simply means your preferences are different and thats fine.


Whats not fine however is signing up for an established game and then demanding fundamental changes based on your preferences. Thats not valid feedback. Because why would it stop there?
Why not change plenty other things based whoever´s preference. Where does this lead? A better game? Absolutely not, it would be chaos once the precedence is set.

Yes, in the end all discussions about game design and balance come down to people's preferences.

"

Whats not fine however is signing up for an established game and then demanding fundamental changes based on your preferences. Thats not valid feedback. Because why would it stop there?
Why not change plenty other things based whoever´s preference. Where does this lead? A better game? Absolutely not, it would be chaos once the precedence is set.

My insistence in posting feedback like this over and over again comes from the belief that people who prefer more freedom in choice and character construction (me included) outnumber those who prefer long and painful digging through countless mechanics in search of a few synergies that happen to work in endgame, and then spending even more time crafting each affix on each rare gear piece as deterministic T1.

People like me usually just leave game before reaching endgame, or never speak forums at all, because forum is already filled with elitists discussing their convoluted synergies, and they are quick to shut off outsiders with "gitgud".

Yes, there is build help section here, but my belief was that the game should be playable without 3rd party tools being hard requirement even before you create a character.

Usually game developers drift towards majority of their playerbase with design and balance. If GGG is indeed special enough to prefer no-life diggers, then everything you said is correct, yet I still can at least express my opinion, no?

"

Echothesis wrote:

Indeed, but you have to pick "correct" build from the start

In my experience this is a mistake, occasionally its right but usually the player needs some help in what direction to work towards and just a bit more knowledge.

The reason I say its a mistake is because players that believe their choice is hardcapped by what they chose won't then make the effort to get that skill to the state it could be at.

If you haven't tied your hands too badly like I have by preferring HC you can really get every skill to a fun and effective state, sometimes you'll have to crutch it but most of the best performing meta skills crutch it anyway.

Some of this is subjective to each of us, I can make strike builds playable but the "bugged" animations we've had for years now makes all the ones that use that particular system feel horrendous to me so i'll always choose an override one like boneshatter or heavy strike. I can give an optimised infernal blow build to someone else and they will find it perfectly acceptable though.

tldr: the skill choices that exclude from content is much smaller than the communities perspective until you add significant restrictions like HC or SSF, you can almost always iterate and improve.

"

Draegnarrr wrote:

tldr: the skill choices that exclude from content is much smaller than the communities perspective until you add significant restrictions like HC or SSF, you can almost always iterate and improve.

Currently I am still pushing forward, playing a bit almost every day, as there is definitely room to improve with my current rares :)

Unfortunately, even if all skills support iteration all the way to endgame, prices of those iterations are hardly on par between skills.

I think half of the playerbase knows skeleton necro's passive tree by heart now, and that build can clear with trash gear better than melee with mirror gear

"

Echothesis wrote:

My insistence in posting feedback like this over and over again comes from the belief that people who prefer more freedom in choice and character construction (me included) outnumber those who prefer long and painful digging through countless mechanics in search of a few synergies that happen to work in endgame, and then spending even more time crafting each affix on each rare gear piece as deterministic T1.

I see where you are coming from and you are ofc entitled to belief whatever you want. I dont agree at all and thats fine too.

The way you are describing the game with terms like "lack of freedom", "painful" etc etc is what made me play this game in the first place. I like it if a game doesnt let you win simply because you went through the trouble of installing the game.

I detest games like that, why would I waste my time on playing those since I already know Im going to "win" no matter what?
Again - preferences.

"

Echothesis wrote:

Usually game developers drift towards majority of their playerbase with design and balance. If GGG is indeed special enough to prefer no-life diggers, then everything you said is correct, yet I still can at least express my opinion, no?

GGG didnt cater towards the majority early on, then they did it for some years and now changed course again towards what it used to be. Thats the one thing I really have to heavily critique GGG cuz thats a massive contributor as to why the playerbase is so divided.

If I had to guess, Id say GGG wants us to play for as long as possible and tries to achieve that by dangling multiple goals in front of us while denying achieving all of those goals by playing just one build.
They are putting out content thats demanding highly specialized builds for that reason. Essentially forcing you to play multiple builds if you are chasing after multiple highend goals.

If that assumption is correct, they have to exclude builds from achieving certain things. They dont want you to achieve everything easily so you have a reason to come back next league wanting to achieve whatever you didnt achieve previously. The game isnt supposed to be finished ever for the vast majority of the playerbase.
Whether you like this approach or philosophy or not, it does work. It also rewards players who are constantly engaging with any given new mechanic and broaden their horizon.
For those players, this game is super easy no matter what. They have the knowledge and knowledge is king in this game.

Building up knowledge requires time which ties neatly into the desire of coming back wanting for more. It makes sense and does work.
However this will also exclude player who dont want or cant spend much time on doing research or playing the game, causing players to quit.

GGG has always been willing to make this sacrifice and this allowed them to put themselves into a unique position. No other game can provide what PoE provides. The moment new games are centered around the lowest common denominator to suck in as many players as possible, it cant be as indepth and also not as rewarding as PoE is.
It will be shallow and boring by comparison and no competition at all.

Thats a strategic decision they made early on I guess and it would be stupid to change course now. I dont think its a coincidence that GGG is reverting to the more punishing and more demanding playstyle shortly after D4 was announced. D4 is going to be casual AF and thats fine. Meaning D4 will suck the air out of the casual ARPG market and its smart to leave that room before it happens.

PoE is profesonaly tradeficazion actuly efort gamed. We need frustratization mechanicaly, because theirs best incentiveting get gutter plyer. Most profesonaly actuly enjoy frustratiztion it is basic well knollewabled psygology.

GGG has devlepoment pro team working to optimize engined with staticsticaly how many plyer death, so theirs manifestedly 'closed your eyes' to keep end game chalenged.

"

GGG has always been willing to make this sacrifice and this allowed them to put themselves into a unique position. No other game can provide what PoE provides. The moment new games are centered around the lowest common denominator to suck in as many players as possible, it cant be as indepth and also not as rewarding as PoE is.
It will be shallow and boring by comparison and no competition at all.

Thats a strategic decision they made early on I guess and it would be stupid to change course now. I dont think its a coincidence that GGG is reverting to the more punishing and more demanding playstyle shortly after D4 was announced. D4 is going to be casual AF and thats fine. Meaning D4 will suck the air out of the casual ARPG market and its smart to leave that room before it happens.

From PoE2 trailers available so far, it seems like GGG may see some merit in point of view closer to what I have voiced. In there, no flying through screens full of mobs, no oneshotting bosses, or receiving full HP bar of damage in 0.5 sec. Why do you think they are showcasing this first, instead of the signature "just keep track of yourself at least" rumbling mess of current juiced maps, if their target audience is indeed those who enjoy what we have now?

Ever since I saw current endgame first time, it looked like out-of-control oversight, not a strategic decision. Sure, people you have described are tenacious and dedicated to the project, but likely not numerous enough to fund development of modern videogame on their own. Especially if we remember amount of revenue Blizzard's "casual" game are generating, I doubt current state is the pinnacle of GGG ambitions.

Solution could be in running 2 Standard leagues "easy" and "hard", with no migration possible between them, as long as they can be supported by one and the same type of server, e.g. difference implemented through general multipliers, not fundamental changes