One Death Maps is a monumental failure.

"

N3vangel#0037 wrote:

No, what you could see in their faces is that they were trying to say as politely as possibly - a lot of the issues being brought to their attention are skill issues and we’re not gonna completely bend a knee to the “make it easier or we’re leaving” crowd.

"Polite" is an interesting take.

Lacked empathy it seemed to me.

Completely acknowledged the fact that Warriors were the worst class in Offense, Defense, and everything in between. Shrugs it off and says "sure".

To their Streamer Customers (interviewees [DM and Ghazzy]).


----


TLDR: -1 Devs ohhh (lol.)

"

N3vangel#0037 wrote:

"

The devs were completely clueless in the interview and basically exposed themselves as only playing something like deadeye or not at all. You could see it in their faces that they really did not have any reason for their actions other than "Uh, d2 did it I guess".

No, what you could see in their faces is that they were trying to say as politely as possibly - a lot of the issues being brought to their attention are skill issues and we’re not gonna completely bend a knee to the “make it easier or we’re leaving” crowd.

that

even just being here for a week, the amount of ridiculous suggestions & entitlement makes me lost hope of humanity.

Some of the questions were extremely blunt and lacked proper etiquette for the audience they were addressing. Given that, I think they handled them as well as anyone could.

"

xonedl#1873 wrote:

makes me lost hope of humanity.

lol lmao

A bit dramatic... lost hope of humanity in a indie game forum sample size of people.

I thought the interview was poor. Their attitude was poor, their knowledge of their own game was lacking, and they definitely did not seem to care about what the community has continuously expressed. They contradict their own vision in how they implement things and in their answers. Also their answers weren't answers most of the time. Simply bypassing a question because it is hard? And it wasn't like "we don't have the answer yet, let's move on"...it was to laugh in your face and give a sarcastic/snarky "sure".

I hope this forum keeps pushing the same feedback regardless of their "answers" until something is done to actually fix problems.

Edit: They should have skipped the interview until they had a real patch as well. The note list is long but does nothing to change the game. Not to mention half their "fixes" had the opposite effect once test(do they test?).

"

Fhrek#4437 wrote:

"

xonedl#1873 wrote:

makes me lost hope of humanity.

lol lmao

A bit dramatic... lost hope of humanity in a indie game forum sample size of people.

trust me bro it's no where near as dramatic as some of the crying threads here

From his own reply on last interview he said he mainly tested warrior in campaign, where he is totally fine and that is fair take, but he was totally clueless on warrior issues on endgame, which is mark specialty

"

FruitLord#0833 wrote:

I thought the interview was poor. Their attitude was poor, their knowledge of their own game was lacking, and they definitely did not seem to care about what the community has continuously expressed. They contradict their own vision in how they implement things and in their answers. Also their answers weren't answers most of the time. Simply bypassing a question because it is hard? And it wasn't like "we don't have the answer yet, let's move on"...it was to laugh in your face and give a sarcastic/snarky "sure".

I hope this forum keeps pushing the same feedback regardless of their "answers" until something is done to actually fix problems.

Edit: They should have skipped the interview until they had a real patch as well. The note list is long but does nothing to change the game. Not to mention half their "fixes" had the opposite effect once test(do they test?).

Overall -- +1.

Er, I mean TLDR: -1 Devs (ohhh). (lol.)

"

ChlenixOn#1541 wrote:

From his own reply on last interview he said he mainly tested warrior in campaign, where he is totally fine and that is fair take, but he was totally clueless on warrior issues on endgame, which is mark specialty

Lol.

"

Completely acknowledged the fact that Warriors were the worst class in Offense, Defense, and everything in between. Shrugs it off and says "sure".

I feel there are generally two opposing philosophies in designing a game.

One philosophy is that games are there to entertain, to fulfill. Developers who take this approach to game design will try to find ways to reward players and avoid taking things away from players, or provide remedies or second chances when a loss happens, even if it was the player's mistake that led to the loss, so that players can make a full recovery. Even if they fail again, players would feel a lot better about the loss since the game made an effort to let them recover.

The other philosophy is that games are there to challenge, to overcome, which in turn will provide much stronger sense of entertainment to players. Developers who take this approach to game design will try to create friction and obstacles everywhere, and deliberately design situations that will take something away from players, or provide mechanics that incentivize players to take risks with higher stakes, without giving second chances or remedies.

Perhaps surprisingly, a frequent mistake made by players who prefer the second type of game is to cite "Souls-like" design as type two, all the while Souls-like designs exhibit many of the characteristics of type 1 philosophy, such as infinite and practically immediate retries on bosses and full recovery by just picking up your "soul".

POE2, on the other hand, is obviously a type 2 game. From crafting to boss fights to endgame mapping, at every corner the game is designed deliberately to make players risk losing something permanently. It's what the devs believe in strongly, and so the game is designed this way. They even go a step futher and tune the game's loot tightly so that when you do lose something, you are more likely to feel you have lost a lot unless you have spent a really long time farming in the game and have the currencies to throw around.

There's no good or bad, right or wrong, better or worse between the two types of designs. They are just different ways to design games, catering to different groups of people.

It is up to the devs to decide if they want to provide a mode that is more accommodating to players who prefer type 1 games. But it wouldn't be the first time a developer feels so strongly about their philosophy, that they think their way is the superior and only right way to do things.

Personally, I think POE2 would sell even more and attract even more players if there is a mode with features like no death penalty, infinite portals, deterministic crafting, high currency drop rate as a baseline, and no bad outcome to corruption etc. But it's a call the devs have to make.

Back in the old days, games used to have difficulty settings that catered to both types of players. Nowadays it seems devs are generally more concened with enforcing their philosophy than with accommodating more players and entertaining more players. It's unfortunate, but it is a proven way to create a more tightly-knit cult following of your game, as you are able to "weed out" people who hold different opinions on gaming.

Hopefully POE2 devs would eventually find it okay to accommodate different player preferences. But until then, the best way to effect a change to this core design philosophy of this game, is to stop playing it. Because by playing the game, you are contributing to the data point as someone who is okay with this design.