Zoom is not fun. It's loot FOMO

I get what you are trying to argue, but the whole “Zoom isn’t actually fun, players only do it because of loot FOMO” idea does not match the reality of how PoE and GGG actually work.

Even if attrition based, methodical combat could be more interesting, that does not matter. GGG has repeatedly shown they will not rebalance reward density or increase loot to compensate for slower pacing. Every time monsters get tankier or fights get slower, drops do not go up. The result is always the same: slower gameplay equals worse progression.

So when you say players choose Zoom because of FOMO, that is only half the story. The rest is that PoE’s entire reward structure is built around speed and volume. GGG made the economy depend on killing thousands of mobs per map. If you slow that down without reworking rewards, the economy collapses, crafting slows to a crawl, and the entire loop that keeps people logging in dies.

Players aren’t choosing Zoom despite the design. They choose Zoom because the overall structure demands it.

And GGG has been consistent about this for years:

They nerf clear speed but do not raise drops.

They make monsters tankier but do not rebalance rewards.

They slow down player power but keep loot output the same.

So maybe methodical combat could be more tactical or more meaningful, but the moment you cut monster count or inflate monster life, the economy faceplants. You cannot run a PoE style market on Diablo 1 mob density. The entire system stands on volume.

Unless GGG becomes willing to:

drastically increase rewards per monster

tighten the drop pool

rework crafting costs

and overhaul how the baseline economy functions

the game cannot move away from Zoom without gutting progression.

Zoom does not represent a simple player preference. Zoom functions as a structural requirement that keeps loot flowing, keeps the market alive, and keeps progression feeling worthwhile.

Remove that foundation, and PoE stops feeling like PoE.

If GGG ever showed even once that they would boost rewards to match a slower pace, the conversation could go somewhere. But based on a decade of evidence, the attrition based vision the OP describes cannot coexist with the current economic model that defines PoE.

"

cyranis#7939 wrote:

I get what you are trying to argue, but the whole “Zoom isn’t actually fun, players only do it because of loot FOMO” idea does not match the reality of how PoE and GGG actually work.

Even if attrition based, methodical combat could be more interesting, that does not matter. GGG has repeatedly shown they will not rebalance reward density or increase loot to compensate for slower pacing. Every time monsters get tankier or fights get slower, drops do not go up. The result is always the same: slower gameplay equals worse progression.

---

If GGG ever showed even once that they would boost rewards to match a slower pace, the conversation could go somewhere. But based on a decade of evidence, the attrition based vision the OP describes cannot coexist with the current economic model that defines PoE.

Hi, welcome to the conversation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you seem to be saying is tantamount to "GGG won't do this because GGG won't do this."

Putting aside what GGG will or won't do, what are your personal feelings on it?

What I’m saying isn’t “GGG won’t do this because GGG won’t do this.”
It’s that an argument needs to be grounded in how the system actually functions and in what GGG has historically shown they’re willing to change. If a proposal doesn’t align with those constraints, it has no practical value, regardless of how appealing it might sound in theory.

As for “personal feelings”: they’re irrelevant here. The point is to evaluate the merits of the system itself, not how any of us feel about it. Feelings can’t be analyzed or debated; the underlying mechanics and impacts can.

If you want a constructive discussion, it has to start with realistic assumptions and evidence about how the game works and how its developers approach design changes.

"

cyranis#7939 wrote:

What I’m saying isn’t “GGG won’t do this because GGG won’t do this.”
It’s that an argument needs to be grounded in how the system actually functions and in what GGG has historically shown they’re willing to change. If a proposal doesn’t align with those constraints, it has no practical value, regardless of how appealing it might sound in theory.

As for “personal feelings”: they’re irrelevant here. The point is to evaluate the merits of the system itself, not how any of us feel about it. Feelings can’t be analyzed or debated; the underlying mechanics and impacts can.

If you want a constructive discussion, it has to start with realistic assumptions and evidence about how the game works and how its developers approach design changes.

Okay thanks.

In the OP I did specify what would need to change, and that included raising loot drops & XP proportionally. I don't abide by the constraints of what people speculate GGG might do, especially for a new title in EA.

Instead, I look at the game in isolation, with 'death of the author' so to speak, and ask how it could be changed for the better. I think that conversation is worth having, whether or not the changes will ever happen. I think that discussing any aspect of the game in a factual way, and giving honest impressions, is constructive.

So I appreciate the concern for our time, but I won't abide by the constraints of what people profess to know about what GGG will do.

I get where you’re coming from. There’s value in blue-sky design discussions, and nobody’s saying you can’t have them. The issue is that once you shift from “here’s a thought experiment” to “here’s a proposal for the actual game,” the constraints matter. Not because of speculation about what GGG might do, but because the mechanics we’re talking about don’t exist in a vacuum.

When you say “just raise loot and XP proportionally,” that isn’t a small toggle. That’s a systemic rebalance touching economy velocity, progression curves, crafting pressure, and difficulty tuning. Those aren’t independent variables. Changing one ripples through the rest, which is exactly why historical behavior from the devs is relevant: it shows which levers they’re willing to pull, and which ones they treat as foundational.

Thinking about what would make the game better is fine. It’s good, even. But if the aim is a constructive discussion about the real system we’re all playing, the proposals need to acknowledge the consequences and the track record. Otherwise we leave the realm of analysis and drift into pure hypotheticals, which is interesting but not actionable.

If the intent is purely theoretical design, say that and we can talk on those terms. If the claim is that these changes should actually be implemented, then grounding them in how the system behaves and how the developers have historically balanced it isn’t optional. It’s the baseline for making the argument coherent.

"

cyranis#7939 wrote:

The issue is that once you shift from “here’s a thought experiment” to “here’s a proposal for the actual game,” the constraints matter. Not because of speculation about what GGG might do, but because the mechanics we’re talking about don’t exist in a vacuum.

When you say “just raise loot and XP proportionally,” that isn’t a small toggle. That’s a systemic rebalance touching economy velocity, progression curves, crafting pressure, and difficulty tuning. Those aren’t independent variables. Changing one ripples through the rest

I talked a little in the OP about the cascade of changes that would have to happen, because I'm aware that these changes won't exist in a vacuum. It's a discussion about fundamental rebalance that will touch many parts of the game. I don't want to impress upon you that I think it would be a trivial change.

"

cyranis#7939 wrote:

which is exactly why historical behavior from the devs is relevant: it shows which levers they’re willing to pull, and which ones they treat as foundational.

Okay so we've gone from "Not because of speculation about what GGG might do" back to our original idea of speculating on the Dev's future actions.

There is no historical precedent for GGG creating a new arpg with the express purpose of having it contain more meaningful combat than a previous entry, within an active EA. And of all game companies, an unwillingness to make frequent changes to the game? If there was ever a time to make changes, it would be now.

I don't think there is much more we can say on that point because we would both be engaged in the practice of mind-reading and interpreting the past to anticipate the future. People said GGG would never implement async trade, let alone with an in-game browser. Do you know why that probably happened? Discussions like these.

"

cyranis#7939 wrote:

Thinking about what would make the game better is fine. It’s good, even. But if the aim is a constructive discussion about the real system we’re all playing, the proposals need to acknowledge the consequences and the track record. Otherwise we leave the realm of analysis and drift into pure hypotheticals, which is interesting but not actionable.

If the intent is purely theoretical design, say that and we can talk on those terms. If the claim is that these changes should actually be implemented, then grounding them in how the system behaves and how the developers have historically balanced it isn’t optional. It’s the baseline for making the argument coherent.

I'm talking about changing some of the game systems, and as a consequence, I am talking about the system we're all playing. It doesn't require that we couch the conversation in speculation about the possibility of the broader changes, or any particular details within, being eventually implemented. We talk about what we would like to see, and then it is up to the devs to decide.

But I'm not going to make the "well, we never really expected GGG to do these things anyway" concession for free.

The intent is to have conversations, see people's feedback, and to eventually have GGG implement ideas that the community wants. So what do you say about us cutting out the concern trolling for "tempering our expectations", and share your thoughts about what was proposed. We'll let GGG parse out what proposals are feasible, and decide for themselves if the baseline arguments are coherent.

You’re reacting like someone who wants to redesign the whole game but doesn’t want to hear what that actually means. Every time a structural consequence gets mentioned, you treat it like an insult instead of a reality check.

You keep hiding behind “the devs will decide,” which is just a way to dodge having to justify anything. If you can’t show how your changes interact with the systems that already exist, then the proposal isn’t serious. It’s a wishlist.

And the moment someone points out the gaps, you jump straight to framing it as negativity or gatekeeping. It’s not. It’s pointing out that you’re arguing for sweeping rewrites without doing the basic homework. You don’t get credit for scale if you can’t defend the details.

If you want your ideas treated like something more than a shower thought, stop flinching whenever someone brings up the parts you skipped.

another topic about complete nonsense, where does the author have time for this, lol

"

cyranis#7939 wrote:

You’re reacting like someone who wants to redesign the whole game but doesn’t want to hear what that actually means. Every time a structural consequence gets mentioned, you treat it like an insult instead of a reality check.

You keep hiding behind “the devs will decide,” which is just a way to dodge having to justify anything. If you can’t show how your changes interact with the systems that already exist, then the proposal isn’t serious. It’s a wishlist.

And the moment someone points out the gaps, you jump straight to framing it as negativity or gatekeeping. It’s not. It’s pointing out that you’re arguing for sweeping rewrites without doing the basic homework. You don’t get credit for scale if you can’t defend the details.

If you want your ideas treated like something more than a shower thought, stop flinching whenever someone brings up the parts you skipped.

I'm responding like someone who feels they are talking with a disingenuous actor, who rather than dealing with the actual subject, wants to undermine the discussion by presenting futility wrapped in a fortune-teller's veil of concern.

Now you're projecting a desire to hide to continue this red herring about divining the intentions of the developers. I haven't dodged but addressed the things you said directly, before proceeding to describe how I perceive the disingenuous intention behind them. You on the other hand, have not addressed a single detail in the OP. Because your intention is not to engage in good faith, but diminish the points in the OP.

These are not gaps you are pointing out. Do you expect me to create a comprehensive list containing details of every system interaction that GGG's team of hundreds of employees worked on, which no single individual in the company likely has complete information on, including the lead devs, who have access and intimate familiarity with their source code and workshopping discussions?

A very ingenuous standard that you expect me to meet in this forum post. If you want to discuss homework, you can start by presenting a single counterpoint to the actual case made in the OP.

Let me take a wild guess and surmise that you don't agree with the original post. Am I warm.

"

wirstroff#1495 wrote:

another topic about complete nonsense, where does the author have time for this, lol

=)

hey, look. I'm learning new things all the time here. Like, that I'm unwilling to have congenial conversations with people who disagree with me.

hehe <3