The interview had major "Do you not have phones?" energy

"

drkekyll#1294 wrote:

"

Nyon#6673 wrote:

"

drkekyll#1294 wrote:

[2.]They... absolutely could yield the same results. It's literally a matter of what values you choose to give them. And the claim is closer to saying "3 x 4 is functionally the same as 2 x 6" than what you suggested.

2. There is no possible universe where they could yield the same results. You lack basic understanding of maths.

This is you telling me that 3x4 is not the same as 2x6. Do you even read what you type?

Ok im just gonna stop replying at this point because I dont think I can explain the stupidity of your reply without getting flagged.

"

drkekyll#1294 wrote:

"

KaosuRyoko#1633 wrote:

I think your point is the there are other differences, which is true but not clearly explained and maybe not entirely relevant to the other persons perspective? It sounds like your point is that if it was actually pure quantity, you'd also be getting more Transmutes and Augs and Exalts, which would ultimately make every other currency even less valuable in relation to Divines than they are currently?

They're arguing that two 10 dollar bills aren't identical to a 20 dollar bill. I'm pointing out that they spend the same, so it's irrelevant. If you upgrade all my 10 dollar bills to 20 dollar bills, I have the same amount of currency (number of printed bills), but since the important quantity we're measuring is the value of said currency, I have indeed gotten more.

Yeah which just goes back to the technically/semantically correct vs functionally correct like I said.


But I think the difference with your example is that dollars have set value relationships, and Exalts/Divines do not. Because some number of them are getting converted there's less Exalts in the economy so the ratio is the ~115/1 or wherever it is now. If you had actual quantity you'd have a ton more Exalts and they'd be worth less compared to a Divine and the overall value might actually be about the same.

I'm not really arguing that you're wrong or what's better for the game. Just sharing my understanding of how there technically are differences between this version of rarity and quantity that could make the argument less cut and dry than it otherwise feels. :)

"

Nyon#6673 wrote:

Ok im just gonna stop replying at this point because I dont think I can explain the stupidity of your reply without getting flagged.

No, I understood that you were saying there's no possible way a Rarity x Quantity formula could give the same results as a Quantity x Quantity formula, but the example made it clear that things needn't be identical to function the same and you still didn't get it, so it's functionally the same as telling me those two equations don't have the same result.

What worried me most about this interview wasn't even the warrior part...

It was their tone like "nah melee is fine".

lol. Actual close range melee is not even close to fine.

"

KaosuRyoko#1633 wrote:

But I think the difference with your example is that dollars have set value relationships, and Exalts/Divines do not. Because some number of them are getting converted there's less Exalts in the economy so the ratio is the ~115/1 or wherever it is now. If you had actual quantity you'd have a ton more Exalts and they'd be worth less compared to a Divine and the overall value might actually be about the same.

I'm not really arguing that you're wrong or what's better for the game. Just sharing my understanding of how there technically are differences between this version of rarity and quantity that could make the argument less cut and dry than it otherwise feels. :)

You could just change it to two different countries' currencies then. Then the exchange rate is similarly in flux. But I will concede that actual quantity would result in more actual low level currency in the economy. That is a difference, yes.

+1

OP is right. The "feeling" of the interview was close enough to the "Do you not have phones". I have no history with POE1 so I just judge what I see for POE2... and I don't like what I see.

Campaign is mostly unbalanced ["EA", I know]: Too strong enemies, weak skills, [some] absurdly weak ascendencies, bland passive tree, limited mobility, unexisting crafting, slogish mapping, slogish ascendency quest, so-so story, ....

And the point for the devs in the interview is the endgame? The copy-pasted POE 1 endgame? Where only a tiny subsection of the most broken builds have even a chance to work? What kind of testing are we supposed to do in this EA? POE 2 gameplay or try-hard meta builds in a POE 1-like "endgame"?

Right now at least 50%+ of the non-copy pasted POE 2 gameplay is "unbalanced" enough to be not cost-effective worthy to be tested. That's not addressed at all in the interview and we have to be happy with it? No sorry, game is in a pitiful state and devs should be ashamed.

Interview "Do you not have phones" equivalent could be something like "Do not you enjoy our game".

"

Nyon#6673 wrote:

"

Orion_3T#9801 wrote:

"

Nyon#6673 wrote:

They seamed to be unaware of a bug that didnt let you proc bleed on es, which they immedietly conceded on and said would get fixed.

This was a bit weird, I felt like they didn't understand or had forgotten something.

If ES doesn't prevent bleed, surely Chaos Innoculation is dead? Unless you accept dying immediately to every randomised bleed enemy.

Yes that was weird. Because they said it was supposed to go trough energy shield. Which would work poorly for CI builds I gather xD

I didn’t get wtf that was about. Maybe if bleed couldn’t kill you by itself it would still work. But if it did then might as well just remove CI node from the game.

"

Gordyne#2944 wrote:

What worried me most about this interview wasn't even the warrior part...

It was their tone like "nah melee is fine".

lol. Actual close range melee is not even close to fine.

I agree. I found them pretty "brick wall-y" throughout the whole conversation.

"

Wormabutter#4288 wrote:

Ggg
Magic find is ok.
Ignore people crying about it

It's not. What are the devs afraid of, that the players have fun because they have good loot ?

They need to rethink what game it is. It's not a souls like, its not an mmo, it's a single player ARPG with coop mechanics.

Get rid of stupid trading and online orbs selling, create a good single player economy and voilà, you have a good ARPG loot system.

If a small team like Crate can do it, why a freaking giant like GGG can't think of a better ARPG looting system?

"

sirbow#3053 wrote:

"

Wormabutter#4288 wrote:

Ggg
Magic find is ok.
Ignore people crying about it

It's not. What are the devs afraid of, that the players have fun because they have good loot ?

They need to rethink what game it is. It's not a souls like, its not an mmo, it's a single player ARPG with coop mechanics.

Get rid of stupid trading and online orbs selling, create a good single player economy and voilà, you have a good ARPG loot system.

If a small team like Crate can do it, why a freaking giant like GGG can't think of a better ARPG looting system?

For reference:
"Path of Exile is an online Action RPG set in the dark fantasy world of Wraeclast. It is designed around a strong online item economy, deep character customisation, competitive PvP and ladder races. The game is completely free and will never be "pay to win"."
- https://www.pathofexile.com/game

The game is designed around a strong online economy, it's not actually single player. This is ofc from PoE1 because 2 doesn't have a similar page yet, but there's no indication anywhere that they're removing trade as a central pillar of game design and character progression. :) What you're asking for is such a drastic departure from the core of the game that I don't really see it ever happening. It's not a matter of capability, it's a matter of design and goals. GGG wants an economy driven ARPG, and so do I.