Maps for end game isn't enough

Y'know, guys... I dunno, how are you getting no maps... May be got out of luck? Last day for about 4 hours i was running pack of maps, starting from my lvl 60 one, and we got even to 66 one (stopped because of fear of one of us, just). ANd this was fun. I think, rate for maps is O.K. now.. And there is one more thing - anonsed PVP - is also kind of end-game stuff, y'know.
What i think about what this game need (except of increased variety of monsters, of course (but i know, thx GGG, they are working on it) is increased variety of item types.. Like, how was said, runes, jewels, all this stuff:) Just because ARPG's is all about items, y'know:)

Certainly some people are getting lucky on map drops, but it seems as though a lot of people aren't having such luck. That's why a mandatory 1 map drop would be nice (One for each player when there are multiple players in a game.
And it sure would be nice if each player got their own drops. That's my biggest problem with playing with other people. If you aren't quick enough, or say you're a ranged character playing with melee characters, that item that was in your name gets picked up by someone else.)

And I'm not really a fan of PvP, so for me, that's not a solution for end-game. Partly because gear is far more important than build, so those with the most epic gear will own in PvP.

Well, IMO, end-game is a term that I don't think has been around nearly long enough. If you cast aside MMO's, then you got a very limited pool of games that were only end game if you were a hardcore grindy player, like playing D2.

Casuals and end-game aren't really feasable to coincide if you want to also cater to HC players (the type that name their company grinding gear).

It's hard to draw a clear answer, but I would say that you guys are doing a damn fine job as it is. So, I would argue that the map system is brilliant. Maybe it needs a bit more tweaking, but endless dungeons and wave set-ups could open a pandoras box of their own issues.

If I could offer any incite on the map system, it would be that it would be nice to have very difficult challenges within a map that would give you a very good, maybe even sure, chance to get a map for the next level. At the same time making maps drop enough in act 2 Merc. to keep people doing them for most of their play is important, as having to spend hours grinding the ability to grind endgame is a little too much badgrind with the goodgrind. To sum up:

The casual or time constrained (lolkids) gamers could still have chances to get higher level maps inception style, but for the skilled HC gamers, you could set yourself apart and level higher by using your skill and cunning to hack a bit of the RNG away.

The problem for me is that the game only has 2 acts right now. I don't really see this as a problem when there are 2 more acts and only 3 difficulties. Diablo 2 hardly has any endgame other than a few bonus bosses, and that still has people playing it. Making different builds and getting cool loot is what gives this type of game replayability.

"

sharkh20 wrote:

The problem for me is that the game only has 2 acts right now. I don't really see this as a problem when there are 2 more acts and only 3 difficulties. Diablo 2 hardly has any endgame other than a few bonus bosses, and that still has people playing it. Making different builds and getting cool loot is what gives this type of game replayability.

True, but Diablo 2 is 15 years old, and why do the same thing Blizzard did? I'm sure GGG wants to innovate.

We should reach our level cap no matter what that the number(100-80-70). This means there must a be non-map lvl60 + killable enviroment for gaining decent experience. After we hit the cap there should be a massive pvp arenas and open world non-lootable, lootable sections. For example like in Drakensang Online(p2win, greedy company).

Anyway first people work for the hitting the level cap in the mean they can pvp(this mean arenas need brackets). Than they can fully pvp with results of ranking or they can keep killing mobs for item or try new builds etc.

"

DeathTouch wrote:

"

CliveHowlitzer wrote:

You know what my version of end game is and always has been for games? Making new characters.
So long as there are always a lot of interesting new builds to try and characters to play, I'll always have something to do. Therefore, I think making the path from 1-max level interesting and dynamic is more important than "end-game".

No offense, but I'd have to disagree with you that the end-game should be that you simply start over. While that might work for you, or even might work with a console game you play at home, it is not enough for a MMMORPG that has lots of competition and wants to survive for a number of years, not only making money, but millions of customers happy.

Sure, while creating new characters, tweaking builds, and all that is fun, eventually I want to settle on a character and make him/her as bad ass as possible, and continually work on getting better and stronger. Without a solid end-game this isn't possible.

So why do what everybody else does? Be different, be better, and do what nobody else is doing. I'm already enjoying how much more variety PoE has over Diablo 3, and I hope they continue to push. Keep up the good work GGG.

Except that this isn't an MMORPG, which a lot of people don't seem to get.

Being F2P with microtransactions essentially means that unlike P2P subscription games like WoW where everyone pays an equal price, PoE does not NEED millions of players. Look at Maple Story for example, 80% of their revenue is paid for by 10% of their playerbase. This type of price discrimination means that a game can survive without a huge following as long as there is a crowd willing to keep it alive.

"

Chris wrote:

What game have you guys played that had a great end-game? Please disregard any super content-heavy ones like MMORPGs that cost two hundred million dollars to make.

Edit: I'm not asking this rhetorically - I am interested in actually getting names of games to research.

Counter-Strike?

"

S_SienZ wrote:

"

markshiu wrote:

I disagree. The difference between those games and PoE is MMO. Now a days, most of the games are ARPG, they all have the Action aspect within.

Besides, most game companies create PvP to have unlimited contents, instead of creating contents with limitation of the game itself. Continue to add content is very difficult, and PvP is a good way to maintain excitement.

Meanwhile, I think Ragnarok Online is a very similar game. Although Ragnarok is a MMO with fake 3D (2D with 4 sides), but the portal connection between each map is identical to PoE. Therefore, the only difference is the limitation of players in each map. PoE has more calculations, so it is more resource heavy. While private Ragnarok server can still handle 60 players on the same map (just a little lag with the skill graphics and damage number flying around).

The concept of PvP simply isn't compatible with PoE's philosophy of a player being able to build any character into any role.

Balancing would make playstyles bland, and every player who wanted to remain relevant in the end game would be forced to go for the optimal build.

The last thing I would want to see is perfectly fun PvE playstyles being nerfed to the ground because they were broken PvP.

Not exactly, Ragnarok online is exactly the same, where you customize your stats. They are not using the passive tree, but a pyramid stats (linear increase to add more particular stats).

You may not change your skill, but they have items including skills in it (sword to cast fireball), but if you have low INT (+magic attack and +MP), it will not be effective. Hint, their core stats is very balance.

Anyways, Ragnanrok online has a lot of PvE area, and they are very balance. Some private servers have town summoning, while you have boss hunt and regular leveling (official server takes even longer to reach level 99 than PoE).

"

markshiu wrote:

"

S_SienZ wrote:

"

markshiu wrote:

I disagree. The difference between those games and PoE is MMO. Now a days, most of the games are ARPG, they all have the Action aspect within.

Besides, most game companies create PvP to have unlimited contents, instead of creating contents with limitation of the game itself. Continue to add content is very difficult, and PvP is a good way to maintain excitement.

Meanwhile, I think Ragnarok Online is a very similar game. Although Ragnarok is a MMO with fake 3D (2D with 4 sides), but the portal connection between each map is identical to PoE. Therefore, the only difference is the limitation of players in each map. PoE has more calculations, so it is more resource heavy. While private Ragnarok server can still handle 60 players on the same map (just a little lag with the skill graphics and damage number flying around).

The concept of PvP simply isn't compatible with PoE's philosophy of a player being able to build any character into any role.

Balancing would make playstyles bland, and every player who wanted to remain relevant in the end game would be forced to go for the optimal build.

The last thing I would want to see is perfectly fun PvE playstyles being nerfed to the ground because they were broken PvP.

Not exactly, Ragnarok online is exactly the same, where you customize your stats. They are not using the passive tree, but a pyramid stats (linear increase to add more particular stats).

You may not change your skill, but they have items including skills in it (sword to cast fireball), but if you have low INT (+magic attack and +MP), it will not be effective. Hint, their core stats is very balance.

Anyways, Ragnanrok online has a lot of PvE area, and they are very balance. Some private servers have town summoning, while you have boss hunt and regular leveling (official server takes even longer to reach level 99 than PoE).

I played RO but not at a high level, was still a kid back then. But from what I heard from my older cousins who played WoE on a very high level you had to build one of the few viable builds to remain relevant.

Bottomline though, this is a hack and slash ARPG, which RO is not. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that these games are similar.

And if I wanted to play RO, I'd play RO, no need to make the 2 games similar.