How can an ARPG fit a vision of more deliberate combat? A discussion thread
" By all means, give the graphical update to PoE 1, with the models, animations and sound (like the initial plan was). I would stop giving feedback of PoE 2 in a heartbeat. The map sizes, map layouts, 1-portal system, annoying tower mechanics, overtuned rarity and totally lack of balance between melee and ranged, as well as HP and ES? You could all enjoy their "ideology". We're already seeing HUGE delays and minimal support for PoE 1, so the "just stick to PoE 1" argument is mute. At best. BTW, I actually LIKE the skeleton of what PoE 2 is. But acting like the game doesn't have glaring issues isn't helping anyone, especially not the players. Sometimes, just sometimes, you should really consider adapting to the world, instead of demanding that the world adapts to you.
|
|
" This is true, but also people are terrible at tempering expectations. We had 5 patches in two weeks of Early Access, and then the holidays happened. There's still MONTHS of EA ahead. People need to wean off their TikTok-induced spazzes and need for immediate response and gratification, and learn how to be a little fucking patient :V (I'm not talking about you. Just the general feel of what the forums are like right now, mind you) Last edited by ClockworkShrew#7536 on Dec 26, 2024, 1:14:08 PM
|
|
" Yeah, most of my feedback is centered around actual, deliberate design decisions and not lack of content or bad balance. You always have to ask "after 15 years of ARPG experience, why did they design it like this?" And the answer is often more scary. That said, I find it VERY scary that they never managed to balance melee vs ranged in PoE 1, made a new game to "fix melee", and it's even worse in that new game. Sometimes, just sometimes, you should really consider adapting to the world, instead of demanding that the world adapts to you.
|
|
" I don't know about resistances. To me they are just part of basic progression and a reason to keep killing to get loot. But I also don't like when you MUST use "this" skill on your character or else you won't be able to scale the damage well enough, be it curses or auras. Curses were always weird to me. I know debuffing monsters is part of rpgs, but give me different ways to do it. PoE 1 is a perfect example where most chars felt a bit like Necro from D2 because even Marauder will want a mark or a curse. Why can't they implement these debuffs into skills that actually hit enemies so that my Marauder isn't cursing someone like an old witch of the woods? lol That's just my opinion and maybe a bit nitpicky, but I like having options |
|
" I have always wondered why they didn't just go the obvious route of giving melee additional defenses. There are several ways to potentially implement it. Innate in melee weapons, give melee nodes additional defenses on top so that it's not viable for ranged to grab them, give melee skills stuff like additional superarmour or damage reductions while being used. There are several things that can be tried that can be melee-specific. |
|
" Probably curses/marks/other debuff options more fitting for marauder/warrior would have to be under the same system, so it doesn't become ideal to have to run one of each. Then getting stuff like "+1 curse on enemies" becomes more of a "+1 debuff on enemies" thing, maybe. That's the first thing that could come to mind. " There is, but Blasphemy Support cuts the power of the curse by a fair bit as a result. |
|
" Yes, but my point is: What if I want a character that doesn't use curses at all? Maybe some builds can do it but it will be very innefective for most of them. That's because curses are too good of a damage amp to pass I think curses should be something you invest into. Like critical hit |
|
|
The problem is that this is a goal that is incompatible with the very nature of this particular subgenre of ARPGs.
ARPGs that are in some way descended from Diablo 2 all have a relatively simple game loop: kill monsters -> get better gear and level up -> kill bigger monsters -> get even better gear and level up -> ... Naturally, every player quickly realizes that the faster they can execute this loop, the faster they can progress through the game, and experience content that they haven't previously seen. The only way you'd get more deliberate combat is if you remove the incentive to increase the pace of this loop. So, as a stupid example, you could say that during any 5 second interval only 1 monster can give you XP and drop items, thereby removing the incentive to build characters that can kill more than 1 monster every 5 seconds. Or you could make it so that only the boss of an area gives you XP and drops items, but the boss arena only "unlocks" after you've been in the map for at least 2 minutes. Every single thing I can think of sounds awful. If you want a slow ARPG, then I'm afraid that you'll have to throw 99% of this game in the bin and start over. Last edited by GregoryAdams#7051 on Dec 26, 2024, 1:45:58 PM
|
|
|
Hire gameplay designers who don't liberally employ "wishful thinking". Will my post sink in... nope.
Last edited by Redfeather_1975#0068 on Dec 26, 2024, 1:49:48 PM
|
|
" While this is absolutely true, I don't see why you can't just buff loot and exp accordingly to match longer encounters. Loot and EXP feel good not as a result of amount of enemies killed necessarily, but as amount gained over time. Killing If a pack gives 1 exp and it takes me 1 second to kill it, that's going to feel similar in terms of rewards to killing a pack that gives 5 exp but takes me 5 seconds, as long as both tasks feel equally rewarding to execute. |
|
