standard league and the season reset feature.

People can whine about the game changing as much as they want, but I'm pretty sure that the game wouldn't be near where it is today without its progressive nature.

The game will ALWAYS be centered around the leagues/ladders. Wanting this to change, is like starting to play chess and advocate for the movement pattern of the queen to change. It just not going to happen. Nor should it. And I think they know very well that the "fuzz"/hype around league start and an everchanging game is what brings in the money - and longevity.

Should they fix mechanical problems in standard, like the map tab fiasco? Of course they should. Several years ago. But should they add some kind of 'exception' to standard, where certain changes, rules or balance decisions do not apply? Absolutely not.

Although I don't agree with the permanent league being the central focus of the game, particularly since I believe the temporary leagues are the mainstay of the game's popularity., I do agree that permanent leagues need more focus.

The leagues have too much impact on the permanent leagues and the shifts are too erratic and severe every three months to the permanent leagues. Losing the atlas sucks. Redoing your skill trees for every character every league is annoying. I am particularly annoyed by the impact in permanent hardcore. Having to create a corrupted legacy map at T16 every league to fill out the atlas presents unnecessary risk each and every time that I don't appreciate.

I don't know how they answer those problems though if GGG wants to keep shaking up the meta and rotating maps through the atlas every three months. I guess the map/atlas thing should have an easy answer: keep a record of maps completed and bonus and as they rotate just keep that status. As for gems/skills gems/skill tree, the problem seems a bit harder and I have nothing to add there.

Adding events with long lead items to complete might give chase achievements for those in the permanent league. It might even give temporary league players a reason to play in permanent leagues as well.

"

Phrazz wrote:

People can whine about the game changing as much as they want, but I'm pretty sure that the game wouldn't be near where it is today without its progressive nature.

I do think most people that have been involved with PoE for any length of time, and / or visit these forums or Reddit often, would agree.

I will say however there is a big difference in describing "change" or "progressive nature", when compared to the MASSIVE pendulum swings we see in PoE. We dont really see tweaks or thoughtful balance. Typically its sledgehammer nerfs and build / item killers.

To be honest I dont know what people actually want? (On average as a whole). Is it big meta swings where people just move from FotM to the next FotM? That's really what people like?

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

(On average as a whole)

I think it's an impossible question. You have OP, that wants Standard to be this oasis, untouched by the hands of balance and tweaks. You have a lot of people that do want the huge pendulum swings. And you have me, that want the balance to be as close to equilibrium as possible, where the smallest of tweaks/additions will shift the META.

I just think the game is too big now (read: Too much) that it's impossible to not need the hammer once in a while. ONE new unique, notable or other small additions can make certain skills/builds OP as hell, and I think it's impossible for GGG to find all of them each league.

"

Phrazz wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

(On average as a whole)

I think it's an impossible question. You have OP, that wants Standard to be this oasis, untouched by the hands of balance and tweaks. You have a lot of people that do want the huge pendulum swings. And you have me, that want the balance to be as close to equilibrium as possible, where the smallest of tweaks/additions will shift the META.

I just think the game is too big now (read: Too much) that it's impossible to not need the hammer once in a while. ONE new unique, notable or other small additions can make certain skills/builds OP as hell, and I think it's impossible for GGG to find all of them each league.

I think that's mostly true, but the reality is that most people seem to enjoy these meta swings, or else the game wouldnt have done as well as it has.

The argument would be that it might have done even better over the course of time if it didnt alienate anyone that cant spend many hours on skill /gear updates, reading notes & manifestos, 3rd party tools, etc..

There is absolutely something to be said about wanting consistency. That you shouldn't log into Standard after 6 months, and find your build and character are changed to an unacceptable degree.

D2 as an example, didnt die because of this, so I do think its hyperbolic to say that PoE would cease to exist with some measured consistency, at least imo. (Not that you personally said this Phrazz)

Then again, maybe FotM is profitable. Maybe it makes their loudest advertisers happy. Clearly GGG picked this swinging development path for a reason.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

I think that's mostly true, but the reality is that most people seem to enjoy these meta swings, or else the game wouldnt have done as well as it has.

The argument would be that it might have done even better over the course of time if it didnt alienate anyone that cant spend many hours on skill /gear updates, reading notes & manifestos, 3rd party tools, etc..

There is absolutely something to be said about wanting consistency. That you shouldn't log into Standard after 6 months, and find your build and character are changed to an unacceptable degree.

D2 as an example, didnt die because of this, so I do think its hyperbolic to say that PoE would cease to exist with some measured consistency, at least imo. (Not that you personally said this Phrazz)

Then again, maybe FotM is profitable. Maybe it makes their loudest advertisers happy. Clearly GGG picked this swinging development path for a reason.

Swinging of meta absolutely pulls some people in each league. But the game didn't always swing the meta through severe changes to existing skills/skill tree/uniques, which represents several major factors for a permanent league. They've shifted the meta in the past with new uniques, bases, and skills. I think they need to get back to that type of meta shift, rather than hard shifts in existing things. Or at least longer periods between those major shifts.

Don't get me wrong, I think skills, uniques and the skill tree need balanced over time and permanent league players expecting the game to be a snapshot that never changes is ridiculous.

Then again, adding things to the game to shift the meta also pisses off people who think the game is too bloated. There isn't a silver bullet to make everyone happy. I personally like the "bloat" as some people call it because I can ignore the things I don't like, and enjoy when things are added that I do like.

GGG should just do whatever they want because the player base is fickle, and they'll be pissed off with most changes or lack of changes anyway.

"

Nubatron wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

I think that's mostly true, but the reality is that most people seem to enjoy these meta swings, or else the game wouldnt have done as well as it has.

The argument would be that it might have done even better over the course of time if it didnt alienate anyone that cant spend many hours on skill /gear updates, reading notes & manifestos, 3rd party tools, etc..

There is absolutely something to be said about wanting consistency. That you shouldn't log into Standard after 6 months, and find your build and character are changed to an unacceptable degree.

D2 as an example, didnt die because of this, so I do think its hyperbolic to say that PoE would cease to exist with some measured consistency, at least imo. (Not that you personally said this Phrazz)

Then again, maybe FotM is profitable. Maybe it makes their loudest advertisers happy. Clearly GGG picked this swinging development path for a reason.

Swinging of meta absolutely pulls some people in each league. But the game didn't always swing the meta through severe changes to existing skills/skill tree/uniques, which represents several major factors for a permanent league. They've shifted the meta in the past with new uniques, bases, and skills. I think they need to get back to that type of meta shift, rather than hard shifts in existing things. Or at least longer periods between those major shifts.

Don't get me wrong, I think skills, uniques and the skill tree need balanced over time and permanent league players expecting the game to be a snapshot that never changes is ridiculous.

Then again, adding things to the game to shift the meta also pisses off people who think the game is too bloated. There isn't a silver bullet to make everyone happy. I personally like the "bloat" as some people call it because I can ignore the things I don't like, and enjoy when things are added that I do like.

GGG should just do whatever they want because the player base is fickle, and they'll be pissed off with most changes or lack of changes anyway.

Well in the past we absolutely went from ES being OP, to Path of Life nodes, back to ES, and so on. It really has been something they have done for many years.

One thing that has changed? Streaming, Content Creators, 3rd party tools, and tracking sites.

Now things get popularized quickly, people can see what's being played, plug things into PoB, use TFT, etc... so everything is turned up to 1000.

So in turn, GGG looks so reactive, putting out fires, and moving on to the next, while never really establishing a foothold, or understanding why the fires spring up in the first place. Like did they not see the Nimis Ring nightmare unfolding? Or Poison minions doing 3-4x dot damage? Or did they and just want to have a cycle where it was popular and over performing?

Again it's hard to know whether to be cynical about their FotM intentions or their basic design philosophy in considering wtf is going on internally at GGG.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

Nubatron wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

I think that's mostly true, but the reality is that most people seem to enjoy these meta swings, or else the game wouldnt have done as well as it has.

The argument would be that it might have done even better over the course of time if it didnt alienate anyone that cant spend many hours on skill /gear updates, reading notes & manifestos, 3rd party tools, etc..

There is absolutely something to be said about wanting consistency. That you shouldn't log into Standard after 6 months, and find your build and character are changed to an unacceptable degree.

D2 as an example, didnt die because of this, so I do think its hyperbolic to say that PoE would cease to exist with some measured consistency, at least imo. (Not that you personally said this Phrazz)

Then again, maybe FotM is profitable. Maybe it makes their loudest advertisers happy. Clearly GGG picked this swinging development path for a reason.

Swinging of meta absolutely pulls some people in each league. But the game didn't always swing the meta through severe changes to existing skills/skill tree/uniques, which represents several major factors for a permanent league. They've shifted the meta in the past with new uniques, bases, and skills. I think they need to get back to that type of meta shift, rather than hard shifts in existing things. Or at least longer periods between those major shifts.

Don't get me wrong, I think skills, uniques and the skill tree need balanced over time and permanent league players expecting the game to be a snapshot that never changes is ridiculous.

Then again, adding things to the game to shift the meta also pisses off people who think the game is too bloated. There isn't a silver bullet to make everyone happy. I personally like the "bloat" as some people call it because I can ignore the things I don't like, and enjoy when things are added that I do like.

GGG should just do whatever they want because the player base is fickle, and they'll be pissed off with most changes or lack of changes anyway.

Well in the past we absolutely went from ES being OP, to Path of Life nodes, back to ES, and so on. It really has been something they have done for many years.

One thing that has changed? Streaming, Content Creators, 3rd party tools, and tracking sites.

Now things get popularized quickly, people can see what's being played, plug things into PoB, use TFT, etc... so everything is turned up to 1000.

So in turn, GGG looks so reactive, putting out fires, and moving on to the next, while never really establishing a foothold, or understanding why the fires spring up in the first place. Like did they not see the Nimis Ring nightmare unfolding? Or Poison minions doing 3-4x dot damage? Or did they and just want to have a cycle where it was popular and over performing?

Again it's hard to know whether to be cynical about their FotM intentions or their basic design philosophy in considering wtf is going on internally at GGG.

The swing between ES and Life is understandable though. One being even marginally better than other will pull a majority of the player base to the path of least resistance to effective hitpoints. It oscillating means they tried to balance the two, but missed -- which I'm not too critical of because even the slightest miscalculation will cause huge swings between those two things.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

The argument would be that it might have done even better over the course of time if it didnt alienate anyone that cant spend many hours on skill /gear updates, reading notes & manifestos, 3rd party tools, etc..

This is true for all games: All games in the history of games would probably "do better" if they appealed more to casual players. It's pretty clear to most people that GGG's aim isn't the most casual of players, which is OK.

"

D2 as an example, didnt die because of this

It was a different time. 'No' games were "progressive" back then. No early access. No "discussing with the community". No live services. 'More' players were casual players. D2:R these days changes, with balance patches and new rune words. Not to mention the competition. What games did Blizzard have to steal your attention away from?

"

Phrazz wrote:

This is true for all games: All games in the history of games would probably "do better" if they appealed more to casual players. It's pretty clear to most people that GGG's aim isn't the most casual of players, which is OK.

I think that's pretty unfair to say only "casuals" want consistency from games. I would disagree wholeheartedly.