POE2 and SSF
|
I've been playing this game for over 10 years, have supported it financially, and have enjoyed it a lot. I appreciate it for what it is, and feel like I've gotten my money's worth.
However, I've been one of the very, very may players who have been asking (since the beginning) for a solo mode that's designed for solo play, with drop rates adjusted to account for no trading. And no, SSF league mode as it's designed (drops tuned for trade) is not it. GGG, for their own reasons, have decided that's not the kind of game they'd like to make. And while I think that's a mistake, I also respect their desires, while I also think the game suffers for it. The main reason they've kept me playing is that there simply isn't a competitor that offers what POE is lacking. Until now, that is. Last Epoch is clearly not POE's equal, in almost every measure that matters. But it's close, it is very fun, and very promising. And the one aspect that it's much better at is respecting and valuing solo play. While here in POE SSF mode is nothing more than a separate league ladder and a "Migrate All" button, in LE there is actually consideration made to the differences in play between those who want to I'll likely continue playing POE (along with LE), although I'm not sure if I feel like continuing to support the game financially while GGG refuses to provide a balanced solo mode. There is a competitor now. Maybe this is a good time for GGG to revisit their stance. - here's my sig
|
|
" You just did a terrific job of summarizing a very long thread. Obviously, I agree with all of this. " Given how many supporter pack badges I have, I don't think I'll even try to convinvce anyone that I'm about to stop supporting them. They say the first step is admitting you have a problem, so I'll say it: I'm a whale. A small whale, for sure, but I've still spent way too much money on a free game, here. That said... while I'll still play PoE2, and probably still buy a supporter pack or two if it's good enough, we are in an ARPG renaissance right now. LE isn't the only contender on the horizon; No Rest For The Wicked releases just next month, and there are more in development from other studios, and all them are looking to take the PoE template and improve on it. GGG aren't standing still or anything, but the ARPG genre is about to become very, very competitive, in a way that it really hasn't been for a while. These are exciting times. Remember, remember the 6th of December...
| |
" Excellent post couldn't agree more. I throw up a little in my mouth every time someone parrots the SSF is supposed to be hard mode drivel Most of them are just the forums most well recognized trolls and GGG White Knights so it's obvious they mostly do it to get attention and provoke arguments. How anyone keeps going with that "reasoning" when Ruthless exists is inexplicable. POE currently has no need at all for SSF to be a challenge mode. In fact exactly the opposite. SC trade is brain dead trivial creative mode, then here's 3 flavors of fucking hard modes. The current situation makes literally no design sense whatsoever. I also like Last Epochs solution to a lot of POEs developer hubris related issues like not having the industry worst time to death design. 1.0 version of an ARPG got melee and time to death better balanced than GGG has in 10 years and 3.23 revisions (ish). Thats kind of embarrassing tbh, LE has some ways to go IMO but they're hitting the blind spot of GGG'S hubris with quite some accuracy already. "only 10% of players care about melee" - Aesop's Fox if he was a GGG dev
"when you die in this game, typically you're getting one shot, you're dieing in one frame; almost always" -Ben_ |
|
" Sorry but that is an idiotic statement and close to 100% false. SSF should not be a HARD MODE. It is simply a preference for finding loot in a loot game not buying it. EHG finally got it but stuck in the mud POE fanboys will still insist SSF is just self masochism. POE2 from what I have seen has a chance to fail really hard. The more and more I see of it the more I think it will appeal to an even smaller niche than POE1 Hope I am wrong but your frankly ignorance is the type of thing that will ruin POE2 | |
" In fairness to @gladiatorpie and others suffering from this particular confusion, the confusion is not their fault. GGG did present SSF mode as a difficulty thing, as if there's no other reason why someone would ever adopt an SSF play style. Players who adopted the SSF mode because they were looking for harder difficulty are also laboring under this same misunderstanding, simply because they've believed what GGG told them. It is 100% wrong -- PoE's SSF modes have exactly the same item balance as its other modes, so if you're playing without trading, the mode you're using for that only matters if you're also playing Ruthless. The problem is that the game's item balance assumes that everybody is trading, and effectively penalizes people who don't do so, regardless of the mode they're using. And it's not only item balance that's problematic. The confusion surrounding this issue originated with GGG, arising from the trade manifesto which simply failed to take into account that trading isn't actually part of the core ARPG gameplay loop, or that anyone would want to simply play the core gameplay loop without taking frequent breaks from the monster-slaying to do, essentially, chores. That's why I'm asking Jonathan to take another look at this, and maybe rethink the initial assumptions which informed that manifesto, and their current approach to SSF. Remember, remember the 6th of December... Last edited by Waitubold on Mar 15, 2024, 9:37:04 AM
| |
" Fantastic point. TBH without LE this conversation is completely moot but now with LE embracing a "find your own stuff" play style as a way to play even the preferred way to play and NOT a difficulty toggle it is something they need to revisit especially with the obvious popularity of Last Epoch which has had more concurrent players than POE has ever had. And it also seems like they are going down a souslike/ARPG combo battle system which might not be widely embraced. | |
" i didnt say easier item acquisition is akin to harmful addiction, im saying the game breeds addictive tendencies in almost everyone that plays it a lot and with those comes an urge for more stuff. but more stuff is often not good, so we got to look at what exactly is it we want more of and why. in not terrified of anything, and im not making up anything. im also in the threads where people are asking for trade to be significantly easier and making the case there that it shouldnt be because trade is already turning the game into an obscene farce for people who do it a lot. im certainly one of the calm people here who is discussing the game mechanics in a logical, honest and unemotional way. my position here, that no one is really wanting to engage with or speak to, is that SSF is currently, for the most, a really balanced functional game mode where most stuff acts as intended. heavy trade on the other hand is a grotesque unbalanced mess. forcing anyone who doesnt trade a lot into a form of strict ssf where they cant even migrate out has many undesirable consequences. we know from the manifesto most people dont trade, we know from the ladder data most people dont play ssf, so most people are in between and should not be forced to either be hardcore traders or strict ssf players to be playing one of 2 states balanced for these extremes. it seems much healthier for the game if the things that are really bad for ssf are fixed in the main game, trade is already a complete shitshow so if you make changes like getting your transfigured gems for people who dont want to trade for them work just fine then youre not gonna destroy the game balance of trade players, their game balance state is already an apocalypse. you can do a lot to fix boss loot table drop rates without needing a separate balance state. people keep saying that ssf players are at a disadvantage. yes, absolutely, trade makes getting items way easier to trading is a massive advantage. but the area being consistently dodged is which mode is currently working in a balanced, reasonable state? i think its almost impossible to look at the things heavy traders are doing and make the claim that is the balanced, reasonable game thats functioning as intended. so if you split the game almost all the changes are not giving extra stuff to the ssf players so that their game can be just as meaningless and ridiculous as heavy traders, most of it would be leaving ssf balance the way it is right now and then nerfing the heavy trade version of the game into the ground. but thats not what people want right? people arnt asking for traders to be nerfed theyre asking for ssf to be buffed. so how about people stop beating around the bush or getting offended and just talk about the specific things that they feel are balanced for the trade economy in a way that feel bad for them in ssf and we can have a meaningful honest discussion about them? |
|
"So to be clear, would you say that whenever someone actually steps beyond the baseline item acquisition by setting up a trade, they also need to be told "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" and given an allegory about pizza consumption? It's not only SSF players considering stepping beyond the baseline (but being completely unable to actually do so) that need to be spoken to like that? I feel better if that's the case. "Well, yes, you have made up the idea that SSF "traps" people in it. That there is a "ridiculously big barrier" preventing people who have an SSF character playing multiplayer. These are inventions. "Sure, but if you insist on only talking about SSF vs "heavy" trade, you miss (or avoid) noting that "light trade" or "medium trade" are also getting more items, to a degree that by the sound of it, is acceptable. "Nobody is suggesting forcing anyone to do anything. You already said earlier that you'd like to see improvements made to the general baseline of both modes. That's fine! I commented on it at the time, but I would suggest there wasn't much other sustained discussion of it because there just wasn't much to discuss. "Make improvements to all leagues where they are needed" is entirely uncontroversial. "I do GGG the courtesy of assuming they are skilled, capable professional game developers who do the things they do intentionally. The game is the way it is because they made it so, intentionally. They, and nobody else, have control over how the game works. So while I have no particular interest in discussing "balanced" or "reasonable" as those are very vague, subjective terms, I do think it is entirely logical to conclude that the game is functioning as intended. "People not giving up on their preferences in favour of yours isn't "beating around the bush". Trading doesn't increase access to just some specific things, it provides broadly increased access to all tradeable item types. Why is that acceptable for trade but SSF players have to provide some narrowed-down list? Last edited by GusTheCrocodile on Mar 16, 2024, 12:14:14 AM
|
|
" if the only thing an ability to trade items in the game added was getting the items easier than farming them yourself then you just wouldnt add trade. that section of the player base getting items easier is a negative thing, its a downside to allowing trade. if the game didnt have trade and someone made the case that trade should be added solely for the purpose of them wanting to get more items with less effort then yeah, we could talk them about pizza. its not though is it. trade brings with it an entire community aspect to the game which has given the game so much, it gives the items a much greater sense of value, it creates a ton of new ways a player can play the game and feel like they are succeeding. this game would be nowhere near as successful as it is had it not been designed to facilitate these things through having trade. the downside of that is that people trade items, and that means you end up with a major disparity between traders and non traders, so either you balance everything around the trade elite which makes the game far too difficult for everyone else or you balance the game for everyone else and the trade elite end up playing an absurd clown show (which is largely what we have now). weve had this discussion before, ive said all this to you before. " ggg have stated clearly most people dont trade in any significant way, and this entire thread is based around the idea that the game is not balanced correctly for those people, that the way the game functions is not correct for both sets of players, the majority who dont and the hardcore who significantly trade. i also happen to watch all the ggg developer interviews they do on youtube and twitch so i have heard them state a number of times that the way players instantly phase uber bosses is not how they intended those bosses to be played or how they want the game to function. they talk a lot about things that are not functioning as intended and what they would like to do to change them or why they cant change them. " its got nothing to do with my preferences, or what is acceptable. people who make posts and spend hours discussing the fact they think there is problems with the game should list the actual specific problems they have with the game so that the discussion can be specific and meaningful. theres plenty of people in threads arguing for trade to be made easier, and a lot of them are talking about specifically what is awful about trade and specifically what they would like to see changed. i dont know where you are going with 'why its acceptable for trade;... why is what acceptable? i dont think what you are saying even relates to any point ive made, i dont think youve understood what ive actually said so im not rly sure theres anything to us replying to each other tbh. it almost feels like you go out of your way to completely misunderstand everything i say and i just end up saying the same things over and over and over because theyre never actually challenged and debated, theyre just misunderstood and then im forced to repeat them. |
|
"That's close to what I asked, but not quite it. It wasn't an "if trade didn't exist" hypothetical; people do trade in order to get more items with less effort, that's a thing that happens thousands and thousands of times a day. Should we be lecturing them about it? Yes, trading has community benefits which are beneficial to the game being able to exist. That's not relevant to the question. It'd be like saying we wouldn't talk about alcoholism causing liver damage because people have fun drinking socially. If you actually think there's a problem there, it's still a problem if people are having fun and building a community while doing it. They're separate categories, one doesn't cancel out the other. "They literally can change them though. They have the code right there. Now, they may well be, for example, making an assessment that making such changes would be detrimental financially, and thus choosing not to make them. I'm not disputing that, or variations on it. But that is a conscious, intentional choice. Therefore the game is functioning as intended. Logistical and business choices involved in game development are still choices. When I say functioning as intended, I do not mean functioning as idealised in a vacuum. I would not consider the distinction to be almost impossible to conceive of, but no big deal. It is perhaps worth noting that I believe there there is a value in looking at things this way beyond simply a preference for things meaning what they say. It stresses that developers have agency, that a constructed world could be constructed differently. It avoids contributing to narratives of developers (or anyone else) being helpless - which I believe are inherently pointless in a discussion about making broad changes to a game. You have to believe things can change, that the forces of social inertia that say "we can't possibly do that!" are in fact not insurmountable. "Trade being non-specific in the items it allows easier access to. That ease of access not being limited to 'fixing specific problems'. |
|
