Chris Wilson on "Bachir Boumaaza" aka Athene stream

"

Morgoth2356 wrote:

(...)
In my opinion, if I had to summarize all what Chris said in this interview in one sentence, it would be "we're opened to good suggestions, but keep in mind we designed that game the way we wanted and we're gonna stick to it".

Except Permanent Allocation very much goes against their view on the game they want to.

The reality is not as black and white as "We designed that game the way wanted and we're gonna stick to it". The reality is that they mostly stick to thier guns, but sometimes cave-in like they did with Permanent Allocation.

"

mazul wrote:

"

ahcos wrote:

Yeah, right, when you've a vision you can't aknowledge that you were wrong and make it better.

Except they weren't wrong, their vision of "loot tension" went far too much against the "fun" factor for far too many players, that's why they changed it. Their vision didn't change, their tastes didn't change, and they were not "wrong" either because a subjective opinion cannot be wrong per se.

You don't know this for sure. If you heard the interview, he specificly stated that they designed the size of items in the inventory just like the inventory itself in a certain way. Maybe they just saw that restricting the inventory clashes with SA, so they introduced PA. Like in: you have to make compromises in some parts of your product to achieve a better outcome on the product as a whole. They made a design mistake, they aknowledged it, and they changed it. Beside the inventory issue, maybe if you hadn't PA you couldn't keep combat as hardcore, or you'd have to increase movement speed, you'd have to lower the drop rates or make wisdom scrolls drop more frequently, yada yada yada ... you get the point. There are alot of aspects connected to a simple change like PA/SA.

They way you state it, it reads like: "they've done it once just like the people wanted it to and it made the game better, they should do it again for other parts of the game as it will make the game better awell." It's not as simple as that.

"

They compromised for the sake of the players.

As i've shown, it could also be that they've changed it for the sake of the game. Ultimately that ofc leads to the players, sure, but that's not neccessarily the way they approached it. "Alot of people dislike SA, so better introduce PA!" vs. "SA hurts core aspects of our vision of the game more than improving it."

Same is true for desync for instance, or for the random nature of drops.

€

Just to be clear, we BOTH don't know what's actually the case. I'm just trying to show you that there are other ways to look at it. Lose a battle but win the war ...

"

mazul wrote:

"

Morgoth2356 wrote:

(...)
In my opinion, if I had to summarize all what Chris said in this interview in one sentence, it would be "we're opened to good suggestions, but keep in mind we designed that game the way we wanted and we're gonna stick to it".

Except Permanent Allocation very much goes against their view on the game they want to.

The reality is not as black and white as "We designed that game the way wanted and we're gonna stick to it". The reality is that they mostly stick to thier guns, but sometimes cave-in like they did with Permanent Allocation.

That's what the "we're opened to" stands for. And short allocation/FFA wasn't IMO a core feature of the game, even if GGG prefered it that way. Although, trading and no "account bound" BS is one.

"

Morgoth2356 wrote:

"

ahcos wrote:

Why give people who don't share their vision of the game what they want, while forgetting about the people who DO share this vision?

Pretty much this. I don't understand some threads on these forums that are considered as "feedbacks" or "suggestions", but in my opinion they are not really, they're demands about changing some core features of the game, core features that brought the large majority here in the first place, and these features make the game what it is. If I dislike the core ideas of a game, I just don't play it, I don't come to the forums and say "Hey love your game <3 but please take an other direction with it otherwise I and 1567 friends of mine are gonna leave". Feedback is like "that skill could be improved that way" or things like that. But threads going like "great game but crafting sucks, rng sucks, map system sucks and dsync sucks" are not. Asking for no trading and BoA items is clearly in that type of so-called "feedback", as it is 100% against what the devs want their game to be. It is not "suggestion", it's just being in the wrong place.

In my opinion, if I had to summarize all what Chris said in this interview in one sentence, it would be "we're opened to good suggestions, but keep in mind we designed that game the way we wanted and we're gonna stick to it".

Just imagine every player having that attitude and quit without saying a word. How would GGG know that Desync is a problem that drives people away?
I really don't care about desync-threads popping up every second day as if its OPs just invented the wheel. But it helps a lot in determining why people don't stick to the game.

Same is true for anything else you listed. GGG are not God, they can fail, no matter what their vision is. But without any feedback they're just fishing in the dark.

And what makes you so sure what their vision is, anyway?

"

Morgoth2356 wrote:

That's what the "we're opened to" stands for. And short allocation/FFA wasn't IMO a core feature of the game, even if GGG prefered it that way. Although, trading and no "account bound" BS is one.

Are we talking about the same game? Loot tension is a core part of Path of Exile, it is the very reason for why we don't have instanced personal looting system like diablo 3. (Chris even touches the importance of loot tension in the interview linked in this thread)

girl gone gamerrr

"

Jojas wrote:

Just imagine every player having that attitude and quit without saying a word. How would GGG know that Desync is a problem that drives people away?
I really don't care about desync-threads popping up every second day as if its OPs just invented the wheel. But it helps a lot in determining why people don't stick to the game.

Dsync was a bad example of mine because of course GGG and every player here would prefer not having dsync in the game...

"

Same is true for anything else you listed. GGG are not God, they can fail, no matter what their vision is. But without any feedback they're just fishing in the dark.

they can fail about things that are not essential to their game, and feedback of course is nice in that case. But you can't say they fail about their main ideas because it's a matter of "you like it or not". For example, they say "a league with no trading and Bind on Pick Up items is of no interest of us", because that's what their vision is, other games have different ones, and that vision cannot be bad in itself. People who think they fail by stating so are just in the wrong place, and there are a lot of other people that like the game because of this vision.

To give you an other analogy to make it simple : giving feedback like "here is what I think could be done to fix dsync" or "That skill should be improved" is like going to a chinese restaurant and informing to the owner that you'd add a little bit more salt and pepper to your meal or that the meat is a little bit burned. In that case, the cook has somehow "failed", and feedback is nice. Saying "I love your game but crafting, trading and looting sucks I want self-bound items and no trading in PoE" is like going to the same chinese restaurant and yelling "I love this place but wtf there are no spaggetti alla carbonara on the menu ? I can't stand those pork and noodles BS !". You can't say that the owner failed in that case, just that the customer has wrong expectations and is in the wrong place.

"

And what makes you so sure what their vision is, anyway?

I don't know, maybe the state of the current game is a good clue ? And the whole lot of interviews + development manifesto here on the website ?

"

mazul wrote:

"

ToxicRatt wrote:

Anyone have important time stamps? I am not watching Athene video.

Please no hateful posts. I think of one the most hateful statement one can make is a statement like "I wont watch anything you do or write".

And I think oversensitive people are trying to put people in a PC prison where they can control everything that is said. If someone says they won't watch Athene and that is enough to freak you out you have no business going near a computer. I don't know how you even make to the end of your street.

"

Corwynt wrote:

"

mazul wrote:

"

ToxicRatt wrote:

Anyone have important time stamps? I am not watching Athene video.

Please no hateful posts. I think of one the most hateful statement one can make is a statement like "I wont watch anything you do or write".

And I think oversensitive people are trying to put people in a PC prison where they can control everything that is said. If someone says they won't watch Athene and that is enough to freak you out you have no business going near a computer. I don't know how you even make to the end of your street.

Don't be hateful towards me T.T. I am just trying to follow papa Chris' "No hateful posts" policy no matter how much I actually advocate for complete freedom of speech.

"

Morgoth2356 wrote:

they can fail about things that are not essential to their game, and feedback of course is nice in that case. But you can't say they fail about their main ideas because it's a matter of "you like it or not". For example, they say "a league with no trading and Bind on Pick Up items is of no interest of us", because that's what their vision is, other games have different ones, and that vision cannot be bad in itself. People who think they fail by stating so are just in the wrong place, and there are a lot of other people that like the game because of this vision.

To give you an other analogy to make it simple : giving feedback like "here is what I think could be done to fix dsync" or "That skill should be improved" is like going to a chinese restaurant and informing to the owner that you'd add a little bit more salt and pepper to your meal or that the meat is a little bit burned. In that case, the cook has somehow "failed", and feedback is nice. Saying "I love your game but crafting, trading and looting sucks I want self-bound items and no trading in PoE" is like going to the same chinese restaurant and yelling "I love this place but wtf there are no spaggetti alla carbonara on the menu ? I can't stand those pork and noodles BS !". You can't say that the owner failed in that case, just that the customer has wrong expectations and is in the wrong place.

"

And what makes you so sure what their vision is, anyway?

I don't know, maybe the state of the current game is a good clue ? And the whole lot of interviews + development manifesto here on the website ?

I get what you mean, but I don't think it's that easy. First of all, GGG has no hivemind. From what I gather there were people who liked the short allocation ("loot tension"), people who really didn't and people who thought it a needless hassle. So it's just wrong to say - I don't think you did but anyway - that GGG "caved in" when they introduced PA.
It's rather that the one faction of GGG that was in favour of players having options was in the minority at first but due to parts of the community being very vocal about it got their saying in the matter strengthend.

So what is true for one thing (Chris has more or less said so) is most likely true for many others. But we don't know for what.
Considering how "better loot, less boring grind" is one of the most talked about topics, there might be people at GGG who now see confirmed what they had said all along. You never know.

So why not discuss just about anything? For example, I'd hate BoP items. Even though I almost never trade I don't want to be robbed of the option to maybe trade an item away one day, especially if I have several of the same piece.
But it's good to read about things like that, anyway. People exchanging ideas, other people getting ideas from the first ideas, even if they were silly or bad, and maybe eventually someone coming up with a something really good where everybody can live with.

The current state of the game is a good clue for GGG's original vision, but there are still the details. For example, as of late a whole lot of new recipes got introduced, in 1.05 there will even be one "very useful for high level players" - considering how "crafting" is being critized as "gambling" this might be GGG's way to lessen its randomness and give the player more control, again something people are very vocal about.

I think you are mistaken seeing GGG as a monolith. They are very flexible and open-minded within their self-imposed limits ("old-school").