"PoE2 deserves BETTER!" - Neversink's take was based.

"

BlastYa#4875 wrote:

Yeah we need to test how it feel, player power is def very high and prob still will be but i guess it need time for them to adjust both player power and monster toughness.

Still very excited for friday in any case. Game is amazing =)

Yeah that's a very good point. Player power curve needs to be flattened in addition to this density change in order to maximize the benefit from it. Many players tend to have reactionary opinions about these things, and I feel as though the monster density change is only one small piece to a larger coherent whole, which they've yet to implement.

So as criticisms naturally arise, just point out honestly how the real issues come from additional balances that haven't been addressed yet.

I've heard mention that the density changes alone will not stop AoE clear meta. This is true. What it will do, is make more single-target oriented builds more viable. In order to get closer to engaging attrition combat, now, we'll need a few more changes. Including the one you're pointing out, which is narrowing the player power curve, so that monsters can be balanced with respect to player power range that is easier to anticipate.

That's not a trivial task, but it's doable. And exponential scaling is just going to make their job harder. It should be heavily reduced both on players and monster scaling from map/rare modifier interactions.

My favorite build is my ice-strike invoker. Because i love melee.

I love the attack speed you can get on it, it's very satisfying once you reach that goal. (He's lvl 98 now)
And not as easy as it look since you need your defense decent to be always in melee distance with them.

So now, he's very strong of course and if you remove monsters without making the ones left toughter it's not gonna be very fun.

I also dont want them to remove my attack speed i worked toward because that will also be less fun/satisfying for me since it's what i like in that build the most.

I do miss the time when i had to be more carrefull at dodging and positioning me tough. The problem is that monsters dont scale past lvl 80/82.

That's why i think the debat is not as easy as it look. And it's far to be blaster vs methodical as i see all over the place on the forum.

They will need to be very carefull in what they're going to do and it's gonna be a tough job.

I think this point is moot and the reason is very simple. When you make a build you are not making a build thinking, I have A and B skill for this and then I have C for this situations and the I have D for another situation. That's not the point of the build or of the game when you boil it down to it's core. The point of the build is to crush everything, after all it is a power fantasy like most games are and anyone saying they want this combos and this dance between player and monster is just deluding himself.

Let's make a mental exercise here just to see if I'm right or wrong. In PoE 1 a lot of people in the past said the game was easy and it became lot more hardcore than it was in the past but these same people keep saying the same, however the moment you nerf what they play which often is the most broken thing quite possibly with abusive interactions or even bugged interactions, they get mad. If they wanted a harder game, why not step away from the meta, heck go with bad skills and don't use broken stuff. Wouldn't that fix it? But they just go from the most broken meta build to the next one and complain it's easy.

Same thing in PoE 2 with people saying they want all of this tactical combat and having to do combos and having to dodge and kite. Then they grab the most broken one button build that needs none of that and complain.

People have the tools to get exactly what they want, refuse to use them and then complain the problem is the game. The bigger question though, is why? Are these people insane? No, far from it in fact. At it's core and ARPG is a game where the single driving goal is to crush everything as hard as you can as easily as you can and get loot, then get more and more powerful. It is a power fantasy and without that element of power fantasy it's not fun. If you are not playing an ARPG and going straight for what the core game play is meant to be you are not going to have fun. Problem is that by wanting something a little different they don't even understand that they don't want what they are asking for.

Does PoE 2 deserve better? Absolutely, there are plenty of questionable design choices but the fact that one button builds and just become and unstoppable powerhouse is the goal is not a problem. That is a goal that the core game play mechanics of the genre.

What people really need is to learn to stop and really take a minute to introspect on these things and get to the root of what is causing these dissonances.

@Elhazzared I'm overly tired of these same talking points I've heard for over a year now that have nothing to stand on and are views that can be compared to a horse wearing blinders. So there's no need for me to debunk anything there since I've been doing it already for way too long.. and it's pretty much the same stuff on repeat. Just go search my posts if you want your nonsense debunked/argued with.

"

WhisperSlade#0532 wrote:

Yeah that's a very good point. Player power curve needs to be flattened in addition to this density change in order to maximize the benefit from it. Many players tend to have reactionary opinions about these things, and I feel as though the monster density change is only one small piece to a larger coherent whole, which they've yet to implement.

So as criticisms naturally arise, just point out honestly how the real issues come from additional balances that haven't been addressed yet.

I've heard mention that the density changes alone will not stop AoE clear meta. This is true. What it will do, is make more single-target oriented builds more viable. In order to get closer to engaging attrition combat, now, we'll need a few more changes. Including the one you're pointing out, which is narrowing the player power curve, so that monsters can be balanced with respect to player power range that is easier to anticipate.

That's not a trivial task, but it's doable. And exponential scaling is just going to make their job harder. It should be heavily reduced both on players and monster scaling from map/rare modifier interactions.

On point and very well spoken as I've come to see in your posts 👌

Something I was surprised to see while reading the patch notes was how some skills that I know overperformed by a landslide weren't hit at all by any nerfs... so that's rather concerning.

The very very good part I saw in the patch notes however, was the usage of the syntagm "up to x" on several previously uncapped passives and gems (Such as Falcon Dive passive and Atalui's blodletting gem).. so that gives me some hope for the future.

All that being said, maybe I'm wrong and I might've not heard Jonathan or Mark right in the ZiggyD interview.... I believe he mentioned the balance team is comprised of 2 people and they're only now training 3 more? Correct me if I'm wrong. That was a huge shocker to me... but at the same time not completely unexpected when you think about the state of balance in this game.... especially considering how complex it is. Hopefully thing will move in the right direction there.

"

IonSugeRau1#1069 wrote:

One of the most important things was them pointing out that rare monsters and monsters in general were supposed to have more identity and not just be defined by the rare mods they have

+1, longer fights with hard elites that drop good loot would be peak experience, instead of mindlessly exploding everything before it moves.

"

IonSugeRau1#1069 wrote:

@Elhazzared I'm overly tired of these same talking points I've heard for over a year now that have nothing to stand on and are views that can be compared to a horse wearing blinders. So there's no need for me to debunk anything there since I've been doing it already for way too long.. and it's pretty much the same stuff on repeat. Just go search my posts if you want your nonsense debunked/argued with.

There is no need for you to debunk anything because there is nothing to debunk. If you don't want to be honest with yourself and stop to think about it for a moment that is your problem, I am not losing any sleep over that. That being said this is the reason GGG will never cave in to people who ask for unreasonable things like that. They give you tools to do what you want but it's up to you to use them and fact is, they remain unused.

"

IonSugeRau1#1069 wrote:

On point and very well spoken as I've come to see in your posts 👌

Thanks =D

In case you didn't catch it live, you definitely want to check out the PoD of Exile (tri, dreamcore, Sirgog, lolcohol) and the last few discussion topics including endgame, density & game direction, and monster identity.

Very good conversation. You'll enjoy it. 👍

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2SAoj2eWVk

Yes, I'm sure GGG wants us to use 15 combos to clear a white pack of mobs.
I just love how every step of the way people that believe this game should devolve into a street fighter like game are proven wrong but keep thinking they're entitled to have the game play specifically the way THEY see it. Funny.

"

Elhazzared#4582 wrote:

There is no need for you to debunk anything because there is nothing to debunk. If you don't want to be honest with yourself and stop to think about it for a moment that is your problem, I am not losing any sleep over that. That being said this is the reason GGG will never cave in to people who ask for unreasonable things like that. They give you tools to do what you want but it's up to you to use them and fact is, they remain unused.

It's nothing personal. I think he's simply tired of responding to the same points that keep recurring. I'm willing to respond to the points you've made because your tone is considerate and far more constructive than what is often seen here.

Just keep in mind that I'm not responding to be obstinate, but to give you a clear sense of my perspective. I'll keep my answers concise, so please don't mistake brevity for dismissiveness. If any particular point seems unclear, interesting, or objectionable, let me know and I’ll expand on it.

"

Elhazzared#4582 wrote:

I think this point is moot and the reason is very simple. When you make a build you are not making a build thinking, I have A and B skill for this and then I have C for this situations and the I have D for another situation. That's not the point of the build or of the game when you boil it down to it's core. The point of the build is to crush everything, after all it is a power fantasy like most games are and anyone saying they want this combos and this dance between player and monster is just deluding himself.

You consider the topic to be moot because players do not currently construct their builds with situational skills intended for responding to different scenarios, and you argue this is because the ARPG genre is defined by power fantasy. Lastly, you characterize Neversink and others as delusional for wanting a more tactical 'dance' with monsters, though I'll have you know some of the best dancers I've met are monsters. 🕺💃

You make 2 distinct points here.

Players do not build characters with multiple situational skills intended for different scenarios.
I would argue that in fact, players do this. But it's uncommon enough outside of the standard clear Vs single target setup that has always existed in PoE1, so we'll put that aside for the more important answer.

The reason players do not currently do this, is because the game is not balanced correctly for it. You see, we're not making a descriptive statement about how the game currently is, which I agree with you on. We are making prescriptive statements about how we would like the game to be. Right now it occupies a point somewhere between PoE1 and where we would like to see the game in terms of combat.

It is of course possible to attempt making a 'situational' build, but it is completely impractical. The incentive structure dictates what the meta becomes, and in a loot-based ARPG, that incentive will tacitly be getting loot as efficiently as possible for most people.

But notice how the incentive of the game (the goal) is not the same thing, as the process for getting there. Players will ignore considerations for the process, i.e. how much fun they are having, in favor of being as efficient as possible in order to achieve the goal.

This is the reason why most players play an efficient build. Not because, due to some stroke of luck, the most efficient possible builds just happen to be the most fun to play; but because efficiency is king. Players will always strive for efficiency, and that is impossible to change. And the most efficient way to play PoE, is to create a build which handles all content seamlessly, by reducing all the game-play down to as few skills as possible, which can by-pass any aspects of combat which would complicate their efforts, and to clear the screen of enemies before those enemies have a chance to make their mechanics relevant.

This is of course a generalization. But an accurate one, and we always speak of these things in generalities.

Now, I personally do not consider distilling the game-play down to the use of one skill for the purpose of homogenizing all combat encounters, to be good from a game-play perspective. And that is not saying anything about the great systems and mechanics in the game, the fun players have grinding for loot, or the experience of progressing a character and having them feel more powerful. Those things are all separate from the actual combat encounters, and they all would exist within a different balance that allows more interesting combat. It comes down to which you prefer as an individual. I and others like me, would like to see something different from the PoE1 that we've played for so long, and take a new direction with something more interesting.

The true purpose of a build in ARPGs is to dominate and kill everything efficiently. The genre is fundamentally a power fantasy.
So this is both an appeal to definition, and an argument from tradition. I want to impress upon you why this is not convincing, because this is a reoccurring argument that I've come across several times a day lately.

There are two problems with it.

1. At what point in time are you selecting this definition from, and on what basis are you selecting this definition.
ARPGs have not always been in the state that PoE1 is. It has evolved over time, and I see no reason why the 'buck' should suddenly stop here. Take a look at the origins of the genre. Have a look at Diablo 1 from the 90s. At the time, these would have been the common consensus of what an ARPG is.

You might correctly point out that ARPGs have changed, and made progress in many respects since then. That the genre must be allowed to evolve from where Diablo 1 was in the 90s. If that's the case, then you can understand why appeals to definition are not convincing. And that evolution, is exactly the case we are trying to make.

2. There are aspects of your definition which are not exclusive to AoE clear, and are not only compatible with engaging combat, but desired, and in some ways more pronounced.
You described ARPGs as a genre containing power fantasy and efficiency. Those are not exclusive to AoE clear. In fact I would argue that both of these are more pronounced with engaging combat. This perspective requires some explanation.

Efficiency:
No matter where you set the ceiling in terms of clear speed, it does not define the level of efficiency and refinement the player has to engage with. And I do not confuse the experience or process of honing efficiency, with the objective metric of 'time' in determining efficiency.

The process of seeking efficiency, depends upon complex interactions and problem-solving to optimize strategy. The objective measure of efficiency, is nothing more than div/hour. The objective measure is effectively meaningless, because efficient acquisition of loot, or XP, or whatever your goal is, is an independent variable that can be adjusted separately from your optimization. (i.e. they can just jack up the numbers)

Here's an example of 'ideal objective efficiency' in a game: You have a character with 5 million inc AoE and 10 million damage. They can clear an entire map without stepping away from the portal. In addition to this, you can enter your inventory, where you will find a button labelled "generate divine orb", which you can click as many times as you like. This is peak efficiency in loot acquisition, but it is not the kind of efficiency I (and hopefully you) care about. The kind we care about, is the process of becoming more efficient, especially compared to the standard set by ourselves and other players.

Power fantasy:
This is the part that involves the most explanation about perspective. I am the type of player, that believes "power earned, is better than power given". I enjoy when a game is difficult, and kicks my ass for a while early on. It makes the experience of becoming powerful later on more fulfilling, as opposed to having always been powerful from the start.

Now, with that in mind. It's my opinion, that progress in power ceases to be meaningful once you reach a point in character progression where you are already trivializing the content. You may disagree, if you believe that your sense of power fantasy involves shaving time off of your map clear. But for me, a large part of the power fantasy, and the experience of progression, comes from how we measure our character relative to the monsters we are fighting, and to have that progression in power have an impact on combat in a tangible way, beyond exceeding 'over-kill damage' inflicted on the monsters that are wiped from the screen before I can tell which monster they were, or what mechanics they would have used.

---

My reply has gone on longer than I expected so I'll briefly touch on two more points that you make below. I can go into more detail later if you wish, but I don't want this reply to get much longer.

"

Elhazzared#4582 wrote:

Let's make a mental exercise here just to see if I'm right or wrong. In PoE 1 a lot of people in the past said the game was easy and it became lot more hardcore than it was in the past but these same people keep saying the same, however the moment you nerf what they play which often is the most broken thing quite possibly with abusive interactions or even bugged interactions, they get mad. If they wanted a harder game, why not step away from the meta, heck go with bad skills and don't use broken stuff. Wouldn't that fix it? But they just go from the most broken meta build to the next one and complain it's easy.

People get mad about nerfs, because they experience these nerfs through a narrow bandwidth of how it will impact their goal of loot acquisition personally, and not from a perspective of overall game balance. It's that simple.

If you gave players the "generate divine orb button" in their inventories, and then took it away, there would be a subset of the player-base who would be vary vocal about it.

And if you belonged to the part of the player base who agreed with the removal of this meta-defining loot acquisition button, but they reintroduced it to the game, you very likely would be one of the players participating in using it, even though you recognize that it isn't good for the game. Why? Because it's objectively superior to other methods of loot acquisition. Not because you find it the most fun way to obtain loot.

I created a thread a few weeks ago about this very topic, why the majority of players play AoE clear here: https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/3879773

If you want me to go over the rest of your response let me know. But this is enough for now. Thanks for your message. Cheers.

True