POE2 and SSF

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

"

Waitubold wrote:

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

the game isnt supposed to be a joke, the intention is that its hard and requires skill, that theres content and items most people never achieve. thats an intended balance state.

This is a great example of a straw man argument. Nobody's asking for the game to a joke. Nobody's asking for Uber bosses to not be a challenge anymore.

thats not what im saying, im saying the game IS a joke for heavy traders and that is proof that most of the rare drops in the game are not balanced around people who trade heavily.

I think your logic is flawed: the omnipresence of trade has resulted in the very imbalance you're describing, but you're asserting that it proves that no imbalance exists.

The game can be balanced based on the assumption that all participants are trading, and still not be properly balanced for the statistical outliers among those who trade.The existence of extreme cases whose focus on the trade game allows them to dominate the game's economy, while also trivializing the rest of the game's content, does not prove that the game couldn't or wouldn't benefit from a mode which is balanced around significantly restricted trading. If anything, it seems to demonstrate that an appropriately balanced trade-free mode is necessary for the health of the game.

GGG should still address the imbalances in the trade-mode game, as well, but it doesn't follow that they should ignore the trade-free experience in the process. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum exercise. We know that it's possible to do both, because it's been done, just not by GGG... yet.

"

Waitubold wrote:

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

it seems like a fundamental disagreement on if a problem exists but i not sure it really is if we were not talking in such unspecific fashions.

I don't want to get too granular about which things I'd specifically want them to change, simply because I think GGG are in a better position to make those calls. I'm like a patient going to see their doctor -- I can identify my pain points, but diagnosing the specific causes, and potential cures, are best left to people who have proven themselves to be much more skilled at that. I trust Mark's and Jonathan's skills; I trust that they sincerely want to make PoE1 and POE2 into the best games they can both be. I just want to draw attention to the painful points of the experiences, so that they bring their skills to bear on them, rather than carrying existing issues forward.

As to whether there's a disagreement about whether there's a problem... I think your own posts, in which you point out several instances where there's general agreement that problems exist, would serve as an effective counter-argument, even if the rest of this thread didn't exist. Of course, the rest of this thread does exist, with plenty of examples of other players who see the same problems that I see, which rather strongly implies that we're responding to some real deficiency in the product.

are people agreeing with you? you wont say what it actually is you have a problem with an they havent said either. i think theres strong evidence the game is mostly balanced around ssf and i personally struggle to see more than a tiny handful of things that should be improved for ssf players. i dont understand what you are talking about because you are not being specific. are you sure the devs understand what you are talking about? because people have been saying this for 11 years now and whatever it is they havent fixed it?

"

Waitubold wrote:

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

even friction within trade, most people who trade only make a few trades, so you still have to make sure that people who trade but do so in a way that has almost no impact on their power are still playing a game that is somewhere in the realm of acceptable compared to someone whos making 20 trades per hour every hour.

You're making a very stat-driven argument here, which is only valid if your guesstimates are correct. You'll note that my OP didn't assume anything in particular about the numbers; I was asking that GGG pull the numbers, something which I don't think they've done recently. They've talked about this too, over the years; they're not just very stat-driven, and would rather make design decisions based on their own feel of the game, rather than pulling a bunch of metrics. They have the data, yes, but they don't rely on it, which I mostly love about their approach -- the result has been my favourite ARPG, and one of my all-time favourite games of any genre, after all.

This is one time when I'd like them to check the numbers, and maybe even share those numbers, so that we're not reduced to wild guessing at those numbers, and can actually have a discussion which is informed by actual facts. The fact that you're making up numbers to back up your assertions pretty clearly shows that there's a need for more clarity, here.

im not making guestimates, im quoting the development manifesto which is written by people who are looking at the hard data and telling us what it shows. they have checked, that have shared it with us and told us how that has informed their game balance in the trade manifesto and i am simply repeating that information to you in that statement.

"

Waitubold wrote:

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

im on a no carb diet right now mixed in with 36 hour fasts, it fking sucks man, u know how much i want to eat a dominos stuffed crust peperoni pizza right now? i also dont want to do that because theres more to it than just what i want to satisfy me right now this minute.

I don't know why you shared this, or why you're dieting so restrictively, but I sincerely wish you luck with this, and many more years of good health.

im doing it because fasting is extremely healthy for you and the best way to transition in and out of fasting is first to get your body working without carbs.

the reason i am sharing that is because its an example we can all relate to of wanting 2 opposing things at the same time. we all want to consume things that we also do not want to have the effects of consuming, be that food, drink, drugs, whatever. i think we all know deep down that the best choice is usually prioritising what you want long term over what you want right now.

this sort of game breeds addictive tendencies, and addictive tendencies push you towards wanting the thing now that hurts you in a long run. all of you in favour of this are saying you want more stuff in ssf. you wont say what stuff you want more of, but you want more stuff. we dont know what the long term effects of that are because you are not saying what it actually is you want.

"

Waitubold wrote:

I think your logic is flawed: the omnipresence of trade has resulted in the very imbalance you're describing, but you're asserting that it proves that no imbalance exists.

no im not, im saying that the imbalance is what people who trade a lot are experiencing and that the intended balance is largely what ssf players are experiencing.

"

If anything, it seems to demonstrate that an appropriately balanced trade-free mode is necessary for the health of the game.

i think if you look at what sf players are achieving and what heavy traders are acheiving the healthy balanced trade free mode is largely what the game is and where the games balance is really messed up is for the people heavily trading.

im saying if you make this split then you probably change almost nothing for ssf mode and just extremely nerf the game for the trade mode, because the ssf bit is the bit that is closest to working as intended right now.




uber pin bosses are supposed to be really hard to get to and only really top skilled players are supposed to be able to beat them. in ssfhc top skilled players are beating the uber pin bosses within a week of league start. thats the game functioning properly, thats indented balance playing out properly.

their equivs in sc trade are instantly phasing those bosses, if they didnt have phases they would kill them in 2 seconds. that is not how the devs want the uber bosses to be.

from what i see the evidence is that in almost all cases ssf is not suffering because the game is balanced around everyone trading, at all. the bit where balance is obviously off is the heavy trade players.


im giving you specific examples that clearly demonstrate this, even in the most ridiculous top end content where ssf should be at its worst the balance seems correct in ssf.

you say you wont give examples of what you think is wrong with ssf.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

are people agreeing with you?

Some of them, yes. Read the thread.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

i think theres strong evidence the game is mostly balanced around ssf and i personally struggle to see more than a tiny handful of things that should be improved for ssf players.

Agree to disagree, I guess, although I question your assumption that non-traders would only benefit from balance changes in a "tiny handful" of circumstances. Again, that's why I've suggested that GGG actually check the data; I suspect non-traders may be more numerous than the common wisdom of trade enjoyers seems to be assuming, and that the game balance being tilted so heavily against them has more pervasive negative effects than is broadly appreciated, especially since Jonathan is talking about making trade even easier, which will tilt the balance even further.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

are you sure the devs understand what you are talking about? because people have been saying this for 11 years now and whatever it is they havent fixed it?

Hopefully, yes, they do; at least, things that Jonathan said in those interviews seems to imply they do. As to why they haven't addressed the issue yet... that was the entire topic of several very long posts. If you haven't read those posts, then I'm sorry, but I can't really summarize it any better for you.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

im not making guestimates, im quoting the development manifesto which is written by people who are looking at the hard data and telling us what it shows. they have checked, that have shared it with us and told us how that has informed their game balance in the trade manifesto and i am simply repeating that information to you in that statement.

I've also read the trade manifesto, which, for reference, can be found at https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2025870. The trade manifesto is very philosophical, and very general; it doesn't mention any of the percentages you put in your post, or any hard numbers at all, so the manifesto is not the source of your numbers. So, this is the point where I suggest that you link to the source of your numbers, which would appear to be somebody's guesstimates, even if they're not originally yours.

For the record, a manifesto doesn't have to include a lot of dry statistics or pie charts; in general, they're suppose to be philosophical, so that's not really a bug, unless your philosophy includes apparent contradictions.

The trade manifesto does include some really good pull quotes, though, like:

"

Players who don't engage in trade are at a significant progression disadvantage in Path of Exile.

I'd actually forgotten that was in there, so thanks for prompting me to re-read the thing. Of course, the manifesto then goes on to assume that people playing without trading are doing it from a love of extra difficulty, rather than a simple dislike of trading, which I disagree with... but that's the entire topic of discussion here, so I won't repeat myself.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

im doing it because fasting is extremely healthy for you and the best way to transition in and out of fasting is first to get your body working without carbs.

the reason i am sharing that is because its an example we can all relate to of wanting 2 opposing things at the same time. we all want to consume things that we also do not want to have the effects of consuming, be that food, drink, drugs, whatever. i think we all know deep down that the best choice is usually prioritising what you want long term over what you want right now.

this sort of game breeds addictive tendencies, and addictive tendencies push you towards wanting the thing now that hurts you in a long run. all of you in favour of this are saying you want more stuff in ssf.

OK, now you're just projecting your own issues onto others. Enjoy your fad diet, though. I apologise for assuming that might have been a matter of medical necessity, rather than just your lifestyle choice.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

you wont say what stuff you want more of, but you want more stuff. we dont know what the long term effects of that are because you are not saying what it actually is you want.

I think I've been specific enough about what my ask is, in the original post -- I'd like GGG to check their data, find out what percentages of the players are actually trading, and then maybe consider updating their trade manifesto with a) those numbers, so that we actually know what they are, and b) maybe more logically consistent reasoning for their position on trade, ideally informed by the numbers.

What I want is consistency, and some fact-based reasoning, in this one area of the game. I'm asking for that, because Jonathan has been giving conflicting signals on that front, which suggests that they could benefit from some more rigor on this issue. I want better clarity here because I think that that has the potential to make the game better for everybody, whether they enjoy trading or not. I'm not going to give a list of specific uniques that I want to drop with greater frequency, though, because that's not the point of the thread for anyone except you.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

im doing it because fasting is extremely healthy for you and the best way to transition in and out of fasting is first to get your body working without carbs.

the reason i am sharing that is because its an example we can all relate to of wanting 2 opposing things at the same time. we all want to consume things that we also do not want to have the effects of consuming, be that food, drink, drugs, whatever. i think we all know deep down that the best choice is usually prioritising what you want long term over what you want right now.

this sort of game breeds addictive tendencies, and addictive tendencies push you towards wanting the thing now that hurts you in a long run. all of you in favour of this are saying you want more stuff in ssf. you wont say what stuff you want more of, but you want more stuff. we dont know what the long term effects of that are because you are not saying what it actually is you want.

God damn this is obnoxious. Completely backwards. Every accusation is a confession, as the saying goes.

If easier item acquisition than SSF is akin to harmful addiction then guess what that says about trade, champ? SSF players are quite specifically the ones who have chosen to abstain, for years. To deign to lecture us about "not prioritising what you want right now" is absurd and insulting.

Meanwhile you're so terrified of SSF being remotely on the same level as trade that you're still out there making up stories about how SSF "traps" people, how they can't get out of it, based on literally nothing. And you want to act like the sober one here.

What a joke.

As mostly only ssf player I think there should not be any tuned drop rate for any specific league be it ssf or not. However I do believe drop rates tuned to suit softcore trade economy do hinder ssf play a lot.

I do not know the specifics on how ggg tier drops but anyone that has played for a long time knows it changes a lot. Chalk it up to rng if you want, but if an item becomes a key piece in a popular build it will often become harder to obtain ssf or not.

If I thought I was getting better rng for playing ssf I would not play it, end of story for me anyway.

Most of this comes down to unique items and combo's being way more overpowered than they should be compared to rare items which have gotten ridiculously harder and harder to craft in ssf.

"

sevens67 wrote:

As mostly only ssf player I think there should not be any tuned drop rate for any specific league be it ssf or not. However I do believe drop rates tuned to suit softcore trade economy do hinder ssf play a lot.

Yes, GGG admit this directly in the trade manifesto. They see it as a feature; they see it as the point of SSF play. I, obviously, disagree; I think SSF is just the purest expression of the classic ARPG gameplay loop: kill monsters, collect your rewards (both XP and loot), grow stronger from the rewards the game gave you, go forth to kill even stronger monsters, repeat. This has always been the core of the ARPG experience, the loop that everybody engages with. "Leave the game, go shopping," is not an essential part of the loop. Some ppl love it, and I'm fine with the game having systems which cater to them, but if the use of those systems is going to be made even more mandatory, as the standard, then I'd like better trade-free options, please.

"

sevens67 wrote:

I do not know the specifics on how ggg tier drops but anyone that has played for a long time knows it changes a lot. Chalk it up to rng if you want, but if an item becomes a key piece in a popular build it will often become harder to obtain ssf or not.

I'm honestly not too worried about the specifics of the drop tables. They're working on the item drop system for PoE1, and PoE2 will have an entirely different system, and I can wait a bit to see what they come up with. I'd like to see some details sooner rather than later, though. If they need to make adjustments to drop rates of specific items for the sake of the trade economy, but have a different, trade-free mode where that doesn't need to happen, I'd be more than okay with it.

"

sevens67 wrote:

If I thought I was getting better rng for playing ssf I would not play it, end of story for me anyway.

I've seen this same sentiment from a couple of ppl on the forums now. The way you feel is definitely valid, especially since SSF was presented to us, explicitly, as as enhanced difficulty mode, rather than being a properly-balanced trade-free mode. I do wonder how many ppl are actually engaging with the SSF mode as it exists, though, versus how many are avoiding it (because GGG has done everything they can do, to make it seem scary), but still not trading. Like I've said a lot in this thread, what I want more than anything right now is some clarity on the issue. Too much of the debate is driven by feelings and assumptions; I crave data.

"

sevens67 wrote:

Most of this comes down to unique items and combo's being way more overpowered than they should be compared to rare items which have gotten ridiculously harder and harder to craft in ssf.

It's not just the unique items, though; there are plenty of little pain points in the current game, content which was obviously built and balanced around trading, and which are effectively off limits if you're not trading.

For example, what about the Sanctum? Forbidden Tomes are about as common as hen's teeth in the current game; not a problem if you're trading, since plenty of players are willing to sell the one Tome they're guaranteed to get in each league. If you're not trading, though, Sanctum effectively doesn't exist. Why even add this to the Atlas, if you're going to restrict access to trade-only? Again, this is where data would clarify; if the overwhelming majority of players are actively trading and loving it, then this is fine. If the split is even 50/50, though, then shit like this is harder to justify.

Or, let's talk Transfigured Gems, the new hotness from this League. The Font only generates random TGs of the same colour as the one you sacrifice, not transfigured versions of the same skill (like, say, one that you need for the build you currently have going on). Not a problem if you're trading: whatever TG you get, someone will probably want it for something, and you can probably find one for sale that you're interested in. If you're not trading, though, how many times would you need to run the Labyrinth to find a specific TG? Or just one of the variants of the skill you're building around?

Every Build of the Week this league was built around a Transfigured Gem, and I've never felt so disconnected and bored while watching them. It's like those videos were describing a totally different game than the one I'm playing... not because I wanted extra difficulty in my PoE experience, but simply because I don't want to role-play as the manager of a consignment store. It low-key kinda sucks.

I don't know if PoE2 will have transfigured gems, of course, or added-difficulty modes of any description (so far, it sounds like the game itself will be hard enough), but with Jonathan talking about removing a lot of the friction surrounding the trade experience for PoE2, thus tilting the balance even more strongly against non-traders, I'd like to know that the new game won't inherit all of this same bullshit from the old before the beta even starts.

For PoE1, this ship has probably sailed; I'm not expecting them to make SSF changes for the existing game, which is what it is. I would like to know that Jonathan has given this a little more though for the new game, though. Right now, it sounds like he's looking for excuses to not think about it. I'd love to be wrong about that, but this is my one worry about PoE2.

I don't feel like they balance the game around trade at the moment, more like they adjust on the fly around what trade is doing and rarely does it affect the ssf player. But when it does affect ssf play it's a permanent downgrade that a ssf player will never overcome where trade players just have to pony up a bit more currency to continue on.

I did not really run into a problem sustaining sanctums myself but I am not the type to chain run them for currency.

The new gems or more importantly the way to acquire them is a bit odd, I don't mind the grind for them, I wouldn't play ssf if time was an issue but its strange to have your skill gated behind content when you have not obtained your skill to do said content yet.

Poe2 will probably follow in poe1's footsteps because for the most part its been working fine, I mean I am still having fun I think :) .

"

sevens67 wrote:

Poe2 will probably follow in poe1's footsteps because for the most part its been working fine, I mean I am still having fun I think :) .

To be clear, I'm also still having fun. I'm looking forward to Necropolis, and generally hyped for PoE2, which looks like it's going to redefine the ARPG genre... again. And there's a lot what works in PoE1 that I definitely want to see carried forward. But there's also a bunch of stuff that we already know won't be carried forward, because GGG themselves have thought of better ways to do those things; that's the entire reason we're getting a PoE2 in the first place.

I think that better options for unassisted solo play could be one of those things, especially since they're definitely buffing trade. I just want PoE2 to be as good as possible, rather than being only nearly as good as possible. And I think they can get all the way there.

It doesn't have be ready for beta, or anything; PoE2 has already mutated into "Scope Creep: The Game" to some extent, so if these sorts of changes have to be pushed into the future a bit, then that's fine... as long as we know that GGG are at least looking into it.

I do not disagree with you on this, ssf should not really be defined as 'harder' but a single player mode that naturally takes a bit more time and effort to achieve some of the same things in my opinion.

In one of the recent podcasts Jonathan was questioned about private leagues. He made some good points on the importance of making sure league starting in a private league had no advantages.

So even though its not exactly the same scenario I think it compare's enough to show that it's being looked at and thought about to some degree.