Ascendancy Trials Feedback: Understanding Player Concerns

"

dreamstate42#3955 wrote:

Let me preface this by saying this post is primarily meant to address GGG, so "you" refers to whoever this may concern or read this at GGG (or the general "you" as in "you as the player do XYZ"). I'm trying to keep this as objective as possible, but please excuse any unintended criticism that might come through.

TL;DR:
The current trials system is a puzzling design decision. It puts something as fundamental and important as the primary power and class fantasy behind previously optional mechanics that are far too different from the core gameplay loop, require specialized builds, and have too much variance in difficulty caused by an unnecessary amount of randomness.

You've acknowledged that nobody was really happy with the Labyrinth, and that it needed an overhaul. Seeing the trials in PoE 2, I now suspect you might not have fully understood why players didn't particularly like the lab in PoE1, and that you may have reached certain conclusions about why you changed it the way you did.


Before I go into more depth, a personal note (this is where objectivity takes a step back, so bear with me):
I'm struggling to understand the reasoning. What was the rationale behind taking two of the most divisive mechanics in PoE1 and making them mandatory? Not only that, but tying them to one of the most important parts of the game? Was it perhaps due to these mechanics not resonating with players in PoE1? Was it an economic decision because you had these mechanics and needed content for PoE2 but were constrained by time? Did you think new players might appreciate them more, not being aware of how controversial these mechanics were initially?


Moving back to what I believe are the main issues with the current state of trials. I'll compare them with the lab in PoE1 and explain why I think the lab wasn't well-received, and how you might have misinterpreted player sentiment about it.


Randomness vs. Predictability
- Both Sekhema and Chaos have layers of randomness that make the difficulty range from "walk in the park" to "well, my build cannot handle this, better try again." That surely can't be the intended design for such an important mechanic. Having something as fundamental as your class ascendancy hidden behind multiple layers of randomness seems problematic. It's concerning to have players go through multiple rooms and floors only to face a choice between: attempting a room with a negative effect their build cannot handle, or abandoning the run, losing all time invested, and hoping the next run will be more favorable.

- The lab in PoE1 was predictable. You knew what to expect. There wasn't much variation. The worst that could happen was an unlucky hit from one of Izaro's slams that could one-shot you, but even that was typically due to player inattention, not the inherent variance of the lab itself.


Generalization vs. Specialization
- Sanctum and Ultimatum were mechanics known for requiring very specific, specialized builds to excel. This was because these mechanics were so different from "the regular game" that the optimal approach was to create a character you wouldn't use in the campaign or mapping.

- The lab, however, was build-agnostic. It didn't judge or discriminate. It was simply there to provide a thematic challenge, and our old friend Izaro was happy to grant ascendancy once he found us worthy. The lab was a natural part of progression.


Optional vs. Mandatory
- Sanctum (Sekhema) and Ultimatum (Chaos) were optional mechanics in PoE1. The first was completely separate from campaign and endgame, while the second was a mechanic in maps you could opt out of. Having these be optional worked in PoE1 because if you didn't enjoy them, you could ignore them. Based on feedback and posts over the years, both were always niche mechanics.

- Now, engaging with them is mandatory. You can no longer skip them if you want to progress your character meaningfully. If you didn't like them before? Unfortunately, that's no longer relevant.


True Choice vs. False Choice
- The lab was never really meant to be a choice. It was there to be completed once you met the requirements, and that was it. It was part of the game. We did it to ascend, to achieve our class fantasy. Nothing more, nothing less.

- With Sekhema and Chaos (and the third one), you aimed to give us a choice in how we want to ascend. But it's not really a choice. It doesn't take advanced psychology to understand that players want their class (and power) fantasy as early as possible. Therefore, we're essentially forced to do Sekhema first. Waiting several more hours for Chaos isn't a choice many would make. It's a choice in name only.


Expectation vs. Reality
- The campaign up until Sekhema in Act 2 sets the precedent for what to expect in the game. For all players, but especially for those new to PoE, the expectation is: A challenging but fair game with bosses that reset on death, but have checkpoints that let you immediately retry them. Beyond that, it's still an ARPG that you play like an ARPG with the usual ARPG mechanics.

- The reality of the trials is: a fundamental part of any ARPG - your actual class, the fantasy you wanted to engage with, the "starter class" you likely chose based on that promised fantasy - is locked behind something completely different. Behind mechanics that aren't ARPG mechanics: a roguelike, a horde survival mode, an autobattler (we know what's coming). You set up expectations and break them in an unfortunate way for one of the most important parts of the game.

- This brings us to where I think you might misunderstand why players didn't like the lab in PoE1: it wasn't disliked because it was the lab. It was disliked because it was sufficiently different from the core gameplay loop that it felt out of place. It was a "single death means failure" mechanic. It suddenly had traps that weren't found anywhere else. It was a series of maps you had to navigate through. It had blocked paths requiring keys. The lab wasn't poorly designed; it just wasn't what players were expecting based on previous gameplay.

- This also leads to my biggest concern with the reasoning mentioned in your Reveal Q&A: "It would be divisive anyway, but this way people at least have a choice." That logic doesn't hold up. The lab was "divisive" because it wasn't what ARPG players expected a core part of an ARPG to be locked behind, yet this approach doubles down on exactly that instead of addressing the underlying issue.


Where do we go from here?
First, I sincerely hope you're open to feedback. Look around - the feedback about trials right now is almost universally negative. Listen to your players, your supporters, the people who love your otherwise fantastic game. Please don't become entrenched in thinking you can make people love these mechanics. Right now, the trials might be the biggest potential "quitting point" in PoE2. And it's so fundamental to the game that it might turn people away not just from Early Access, but permanently. So please, take time to address this issue. Be open, be transparent, start a dialogue.

The minimum changes needed to show you value player feedback:
- Remove honor from Sekhema, at minimum from bosses, ideally altogether. It was a problematic mechanic in Sanctum, and remains so in Sekhema. Don't force players to suddenly walk on eggshells if you haven't before. Make these trials accessible to all builds equally, not just builds inherently good at avoiding damage.

- Significantly decrease or remove the variance of randomness: Having to get lucky to ascend feels frustrating beyond measure. Make both trials a predictable series of steps, with known modifiers and minimal variation.

- Remove the randomness from access itself: Remove access tokens. Lock access behind levels. If you want to maintain some similarity with PoE1, only require access tokens for the final trials.

Why not create trials that are build-agnostic and enhance what players already enjoy?
- A boss rush mode that pits you against three or more campaign bosses you've encountered so far, plus one of the current Sekhema/Chaos bosses? The bosses are fantastic; give us more opportunities to fight them. During trials, this would be an excellent way to face them, as they would have additional stakes and meaning!

- Alternative suggestion: Remove the trials completely. Make them a class quest. Sometimes the traditional approach is actually ideal. The classic "Build-up - Climax - Resolution" structure for stories or I-IV-vi-V chord progression in music are used because they work universally well.


As you can see from this extensive (or rather: wall-of-text-y) feedback, I care deeply about PoE, both 1 and 2. PoE 2 has an excellent foundation, but the current state of trials significantly impacts the enjoyment of the game. Please, GGG, keep an open mind and address the feedback many players are providing.

"

Brohl#5363 wrote:

First of all, let me point out, that this is one of the best feedback threads i read here.
It's well structured and easily understandable.
And i respect the honesty of bringing in subjective thoughts and reasons.

"

Brohl#5363 wrote:

Randomness vs. Predictability
While i see that some players dislike randomness in such a powerful mechanic, i think there are enough choices to go forward.
You got the choice of doing Sekhema or Chaos Trials. You got the choice which room to enter/what debuff to take. Making it appear as if you'd completely rely on randomness is not really true and if your character cant reasonably take any of the options, it might as well be your deed to improve on your character.
The Lab was also a lot easier for some builds, than for others. Without guiding websites, it could also take significantly longer to complete. And dont get me on the later fixed randomness of finding the trials in maps.
Those are points they clearly improved on.

"

Brohl#5363 wrote:

Optional vs. Mandatory
I think there was no point made on your side at all.
No change in how important ascending is. Some disliked Lab, some dislike Sanctum or Ultimatum.
You wont find something everyone likes. At least we got a choice how to ascend.

"

Brohl#5363 wrote:

True Choice vs. False Choice
Now here you directly contradict your point before by pointing out how the Lab was never optional either. Whether people liked it, or not.
But the second part i agree with. While it was common in PoE1 to overlevel before doing lab and you could do the same in PoE2/start with the Chaos Trial instead of Sekhema, the FOMO of not doing Sekhema is a factor to address.

"

Brohl#5363 wrote:

Now here is something fundamentally wrong.
"Almost universally negative feedback" is misleading, since people are much, much more likely to leave feedback when they dislike something. They search for others with the same issues. It's called confirmation-bias.
While the vast majority of people that like the new mechanic wont leave a review, but play on.
So always take those threads with a grain of salt. They are not representive.

Also not all feedback is correct feedback.

"

Brohl#5363 wrote:

The minimum changes needed to show you value player feedback:
Somewhat condescending, arent we?
While i could see giving us more options in the encounter itself (maybe 4 choiced on chaos, rather than 3) i strongly disagree with making encounters straight up easier/trivial.
You need to earn your ascendency for it to feel powerful to begin with. Otherwise its just a few passive points on the tree.

"

Brohl#5363 wrote:

Why not create trials that are build-agnostic and enhance what players already enjoy?
You ask this and immediatly answer with an option, that highly favors boss-killing builds.
It was stated before, that GGG wants to give you options how to play the game. Farming mobs, farming bosses, farming league-mechanics.
I guess you just threw it into the ring without much thinking, but the point stands:
Your option is less build-agnostic than the options we got right now.
And with the 3rd Trial there will be even more choice.

"

Brohl#5363 wrote:

Where do we go from here?
Now here is something fundamentally wrong.
"Almost universally negative feedback" is misleading, since people are much, much more likely to leave feedback when they dislike something. They search for others with the same issues. It's called confirmation-bias.
While the vast majority of people that like the new mechanic wont leave a review, but play on.
So always take those threads with a grain of salt. They are not representive.

Also not all feedback is correct feedback.