Why T18 Maps Are Necessary for the Future of Endgame PoE

"

Z3RoNightMare#7140 wrote:

.

By that standard everything becomes a balancing issue, even things like quality of life improvements. An example of one such strawman argument would be "adding too many quality of life features means players waste less time on mundane tasks and spend more time finding better gear and optimizing their characters. Thus, we either have to limit future QoL improvements or lower the power ceiling".

The reductio does apply, because choosing the range of maps to scale between 1 to 16 is an arbitrary choice and no law of nature. You could as well say the progression goes from tier 1 to 10, from 1 to 8, from 1 to 6. The devs at some point chose T1-T16, and they expanded the game with lvl 84 zones way before Tier 17 maps were even a fixture in the game.

Even before T17 maps were a thing, only an elect few builds and/or archetypes were on the very top of the power pyramid and we have seen meta shifts and changes at the top very consistently, with GGG taking measures when things got too out of hand (i.e. Herald stackers).

Personally, I have been doing T17 maps on most of my builds, many of which you wouldn't even consider top builds and using skills you wouldn't even think of using for endgame mapping. A lot more builds are able to push that content than you give them credit for, your perception warped by poe.ninja stats and visibility through content creators. This has always been true for this game. This is something I chalk up to player skill, or lack thereof in case of people who are unable to break the mold and come up with their own builds. PoE has always rewarded people who experiment and come up with new strategies and it should continue to do that.

What you are essentially suggesting is pulling another Expedition nerf fest which will 100% kill the remaining goodwill from the community towards the dev after what many considered a snooze-fest of a league with poor retention rate. If you have a better suggestion, feel free to drop it but I'm done arguing your sidebar

"

ArtCrusade#4438 wrote:

.

Comparing Quality of Life to vertical power scaling is a complete false analogy. Clicking a button once instead of ten times doesn't change whether a build can survive a boss slam, bypass a phase with 500M DPS or if the build can complete the map to begin with. One is a matter of interface, the other is a matter of core game balance. Trying to conflate the two is the definition of a red herring.

When you say 'it could be 1 to 10 or 1 to 8,' you’re actually proving my point: the specific number doesn't matter. The stability of the ceiling and the balance of the whole structure does. If the game had launched with T1–T10 and players later trivialized T10, adding T12 would raise the exact same concerns. The issue wouldn’t disappear just because the numbers are smaller. The dynamic is the same: outliers trivialize the top, the ceiling is extended, and the baseline shifts upward.

This thread's proposed ideas is the definition of post-poning balance, seeking to reward laziness of game design; thinking that by moving the pole a few inches higher, someone who is jumping meters above it will feel the difference.

Or at least argue GGG can't properly balance the game. Now THAT i can believe. I mean, i distinctively remember Wilson arguing against simply adding more hp to monsters... but i guess he's not here anymore?

"

Z3RoNightMare#7140 wrote:

.

Power creep is as natural to live service games as inflation is to real life economies. Devs are able to balance outliers while also adding more aspirational content, so that's a false equivalance fallacy.

Honestly, if you are gonna drop contradictory statements like "the devs should not add harder endgame content, instead they should nerf the top end" (because THAT is what you mean when you say balance, you mean nerfs) and then ending your post with "I guess they can't balance the game properly", why do you even argue the point at all?

So far the only suggestion you made was to "balance" the game better and making mobs in endgame tankier. Are those your best suggestions? Very... whelming

"

ArtCrusade#4438 wrote:

.

You’re usually very reasonable, which makes it even more telling that you don't have an actual argument if you're falling back on trying to throw fallacy accusations instead of actually discussing the subject. What’s even more annoying is that you're constantly and incorrectly assigning those fallacies. Rust is natural, should we stop making stainless steel? Death is also natural, should we outlaw all hospitals? This is not a false equivalency, and it's not a false dichotomy either. The only response to power creep isn't monster creep, which is even more damning on your part because you are simply ignoring everything I'm saying and just using the same rhetoric like an empty, baseless doctrine with several precedents that prove you wrong. By how many times people say 'D4 BAD', you'd think people would actually know why, not just being salty fanboys of the 'x' competing franchise. Let's not pretend what's being proposed will help 'longevity', nor is it 'aspirational' or 'innovative' and that Diablo hasn't alredy done it before. Unsuccessfully.

There is zero contradiction in saying 'the game needs better balance' while simultaneously acknowledging that 'the devs are currently struggling to provide it.' That isn't a 'gotcha' moment; it’s a critique, one that it's clear you're not understanding. If you think it's contradictory, it's because you're trapped in your own rhetoric and are now unwilling to concede that I'm right in asking for the game to be balanced instead of ignoring the issue and simply adding bigger numbers. My argument is simple: I want PoE to remain a complex, diverse ARPG, not a shallow 'Greater Rift' treadmill where we celebrate the devs' inability to balance by asking for more tiers, incorrectly thinking THAT is how longevity is achieved. The fact that you think 'nerfs' and 'balance' are contradictory to 'fun' proves you’re looking for a power fantasy that doesn't care about the game's long-term health. I’m arguing for the game Wilson once described: one where difficulty comes from mechanics, not just adding zeroes to a monster's health pool because you're afraid to touch the outliers.

You're calling a structural solution 'whelming' because it doesn't offer the immediate dopamine hit of a new, shiny tier number. But you're misrepresenting, again, my point: I didn't say 'just make mobs tankier.' I said stop using monster HP as a band-aid for broken player power. It's 'underwhelming' to you because it requires actual work from the devs and actual skill from the players. Adding a T18 tier is 'easy', it’s just changing a variable in a spreadsheet. It’s the ultimate 'lazy' design. You’re asking for a participation trophy for power creep. You want the game to grow taller while it’s becoming paper-thin. I’d rather have a game that is 'whelming' because its systems actually work together, rather than a game that is 'exciting' for two weeks before the community realizes the meta has shrunk to the size of a needle head.

Take Uber Elder. When that fight was released, it was praised as one of the best bosses in the game for a reson. Was it because it had Tier 18 HP? No. It was because it was a mechanical fight that required positioning, timing, and awareness. That is the difference between horizontal depth and your proposed vertical bloat. Uber Elder asked: 'Can you handle these overlapping mechanics?' Your T18 proposal asks: 'Did you follow the meta-guide and stack enough zeroes on your gear?'

If you think requiring 100M DPS to enter a map is 'aspirational,' you’re just asking for a gatekeeper, not a challenge. You’re arguing for the 'Greater Rift' model that turned Diablo 3 into a game where your gear sets have 10,000% damage modifiers just to stay relevant. I’ll stick with Wilson’s old-school philosophy: difficulty should come from how you play, not from how high you can push a spreadsheet before the math breaks. If you want a bigger number, go play a clicker game. I’d rather PoE stay a mechanical game, not a Diablo 3 ripoff in the making.

If 'more tiers' is your only metric for a 'good suggestion,' then you aren't looking for a better game, you're the equivalent of the noob asking for more free loot with the only distictive change being you have more time in your hands.

P.S.: I think I've already made my point clear and I believe it's up to the devs to discern for themselves. Just stop with the incorrect use of fallacies, sophisms, and 'buzzwords.' It doesn't make your argument any stronger; it just makes it harder to have an honest discussion.

"

Z3RoNightMare#7140 wrote:

.

Oh, but I do understand your broader point. You wish for the devs to "properly balance" the game without specifying what you mean by that. Surely you include cutting down outliers like Herald Stackers back in Delirium league, which they do regardless of what anyone discusses here. What else?

We probably disagree on what good balance looks like, because there are different camps in that discussion. I was hinting at that, because what you deem good balance may not align with what the devs consider to be good balance. For example, I do not think that all skills not be on the same power level or have similar complicated scaling mechanisms (e.g. compare Fireball to Flamewood). This is a whole different sideboard and mostly a philosophy debate and I didn't want that here.

When I was talking about "fun" and "blanket nerfs" I was calling back to what happened in Expedition league when we had a real life example of what happens when the devs do that. I didn't mind those nerfs personally, although I was glad when they caved on Flasks as those felt awful in the starting bit of that league. But the vast majority of the playerbase was outraged and was having less fun. As much as you do, I want GGG to succeed in keeping PoE alive, and blanket nerfs just won't work especially following a league such as Keepers, which was not well received by at least a considerable portion of the playerbase.

Again, you misunderstand me if you think I equate "nerfs" and "less fun." My apologies for not being clearer on that.

Now, to your other points: when I talk about T18 I don't talk about just adding more HP to monsters. Are you taking me for a fool? The difference between T16 and T17 includes more monster HP, but that is not what makes them so different from one another. I am interested in discussing what else you can do to make T17+ content that is aspirational and thus provides a challenge for those that get bored with the currently rather limited offering in that department (compare: 150+ T16 layouts vs a few T17 layouts). Heck, it doesn't have to be T18 at all but if there were more T17 layouts with fun bosses I'd be game for that.

And about "being reasonable": you don't even entertain the thought of discussing how the game can be expanded to improve the endgame, but expect gleeful agreement in return? Bruh.

"

Z3RoNightMare#7140 wrote:

If you think requiring 100M DPS to enter a map is 'aspirational,' you’re just asking for a gatekeeper, not a challenge. You’re arguing for the 'Greater Rift' model that turned Diablo 3 into a game where your gear sets have 10,000% damage modifiers just to stay relevant. I’ll stick with Wilson’s old-school philosophy: difficulty should come from how you play, not from how high you can push a spreadsheet before the math breaks.

Who exactly said that the new content would require 100 million DPS? That sounds less like a real concern and more like running out of arguments against T18, so arbitrary numbers get thrown in instead.

That “Wilson old-school philosophy” you’re quoting belongs to a long-abandoned design era. Path of Exile didn’t just drift away from that Diablo 2–style friction-first, anti-fun policy copy, it consciously left it behind. And that shift is exactly what pushed the game into a far healthier, more engaging state.

No one is asking for Greater Rifts or Diablo 3–style power creep sets. Framing higher map tiers as spreadsheet abuse completely misses the point of what was actually suggested.

T16 stopped being the top of the progression ladder a long time ago. If anything, they now sit at the bottom of it. They still have their place, but they haven’t been the thrilling endgame for years. T17, meanwhile, remains niche with only a few layouts and doesn’t offer much of a challenge either. That’s why it’s time to move on to T18 maps, expanding both the progression ladder and the content players can engage with, because T16 has long since become little more than stale bread.

@zero: you claim that t1 - t16 is a median progression and that its perfectly fine, but anything above t16 all of a sudden is part of this entirely separate destructive vertical scaling?

Says who?

Because maps weren't ALWAYS up to t16. That wasn't the baseline. There were only like 5 tiers in the beginning, which then expanded to 10, which then ultimately became t16. I still have my old maps from pre-3.0 and even pre-2.0


The only "truth" here in terms of "median progression" is that t1 - t16 lasted the longest so far in game history. But it was never and can't ever be permanent in a live development game. It simply isn't the median progression curve any longer. Back then, t16s were aspirational content WITHOUT JUICE. Now, t16s for anyone who makes it to endgame are just basic content that ANY amalgamated build can reach with practically less than 100 chaos. There's a massive historical difference within that unchanged "progression".


It's not new tiers of maps moving the goalposts......its responding to new levels of POWER that the game has already. And its literally how this game has survived for 13 years so far. The goalposts have already been broken down and forgotten about.

GGG could take two approaches:
1) "Balance" in the form of blanket nerfs across the board for everyone, so that t16s become as challenging as they USED to be when they were first introduced. Good luck with that one! But that would fit your flawed reasoning of "median progression".

2) Continue to expand the upper level challenges which offers rationale for EVERY build to push themselves to the absolute extreme. And yes...extremes mean narrowing of focus. That's natural and unavoidable.


We could talk endlessly about appropriate design of such maps, but the hard reality is that the t1 - t16 is grossly outclassed in modern PoE and it is showing its age as a system. If you choose to make that the gold standard, the "fix" would be much more brutal across the board.

"

Celestriad#0304 wrote:

T18 maps could offer:

- Improved base item quantity/rarity
- Higher chances for top-end currency, scarabs, and invitations
- Access to exclusive modifiers, bosses, or crafting materials
- A meaningful alternative to boss rushing for endgame farming

This would ensure that difficult content feels worthwhile without invalidating existing strategies or forcing casual players into content they may not enjoy.

Disagree. The "just increase quantity and rarity" approach is boring and tired. Eventually every monster will freeze the game with the number of items they drop.

Instead, t18s could offer a quality scale of items but overall REDUCE the quantity of items.

Ex:
25% reduced quantity of items found in area
Items found in area have mods of t4 or better
Items can drop with ascended mod tiers

So... how will we call the next "we really want to pretend its not mandatory but it kinda is, but we will still never admit it" defensive layer to go along with the extra tiers?

Or what will the new mageblood/progenesis 100d+ tier uniques do?

"

Bosscannon#3325 wrote:

So... how will we call the next "we really want to pretend its not mandatory but it kinda is, but we will still never admit it" defensive layer to go along with the extra tiers?

I'm voting for "get good". The best defensive layer since 1958.