SSF should be more rewarding to play. I'm not a masochist for pete sakes...

"

KaosuRyoko#1633 wrote:

Oh here's this thread, guess it got several pages back hah.
I don't have much response to your latest replies. Sounds like we agree on a lot of points and agree to disagree on some of it.

I am curious though. If instead of SSF, it was called Ironman, or Hardmode, or This Will Suck, or something like that, do you think you'd still have this same perspective? Is it just the phrase SSF that in your mind translates to a mode designed for solo play that makes you feel disappointed that it isn't?

I think if it was called Ironman I would of had a similar complaint adding to the notion that SSF and Ironman are essentially one and the same; I would of just made clarifications in associating SSF with the word Ironman. Hardmode + This-Will-Suck on the other hand I feel I would of been asking for an SSF mode. Cause these two modes are not representative of SSF nor Ironman mode imo. SSF is do it yourself. The challenge isn't inherently "hardmode" nor is it a "this will suck" mode. I'd say hardmode is closer to a HC/HCSSF mode(edit: but not exactly, I would say hardmode is like the game screen you see in some singleplayer games having the starting options be: NORMAL or HARD. With Hardmode being the Hard options...) and this will suck would be in the same boat. Heck I'd go as far as to say "this will suck" is also trying to play standard with your own build and not understanding theory crafting... lmao

As for the phrase SSF. I would agree it hits different cause you have the double Solo + Self which is very much that by yourself aspect.

Although the disappointment more comes from feeling like GGG cut corners to avoid balancing two economies; I get why. Mind you, I enjoy the souls series and games like elden ring or Monster Hunter that have an emphasis on solo but challenging/rewarding gameplay through knowledge/experience. Yet that stems from the fact that each of those economies are based on a self-driven one. It's why it feels balanced despite being challenging.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone say there wasn't enough loot drops in a souls-like; Despite complaints about the difficulty...

[EDIT]

"

Oh here's this thread, guess it got several pages back hah.

Might be a bit longer because I have a tendency to reply with longer responses lmao. Although I am content with the amount of interaction it is getting. Wasn't expecting any, maybe one or two people. So I'm happy. Got really good feedbackfrom nearly everyone as well.

Makes sense. I didn't really think a different name would change anything but i was curious.

"

SaintLessLegend#6078 wrote:

Although the disappointment more comes from feeling like GGG cut corners to avoid balancing two economies; I get why. Mind you, I enjoy the souls series and games like elden ring or Monster Hunter that have an emphasis on solo but challenging/rewarding gameplay through knowledge/experience. Yet that stems from the fact that each of those economies are based on a self-driven one. It's why it feels balanced despite being challenging.

Ah yeah but see, they aren't cutting corners. They are intentionally prioritizing the health of trade because they also believe (as evidenced by the SSF announcement post linked earlier) that fracturing the trade league will weaken or kill it. Just a matter of the core philosophy of the game. None of your suggestions are inherently unreasonable, they're just contrary to the core philosophy. Unfortunately an offline client would likely be years of effort and is contrary to another core philosophy they seem to have about the value of secret information and community discovery. Also not an inherently bad idea by any means, just unfortunately unrealistic in the context of PoE2.

"

SaintLessLegend#6078 wrote:

I don't think I have ever heard anyone say there wasn't enough loot drops in a souls-like; Despite complaints about the difficulty...

Well there's a core difference there, the large majority of drops in a Souls game are guaranteed from a boss/enemy. There's some stuff that's random drops from specific mobs, but those are like 1% drop rate, not 0.000001% drop rate. Which would be a way to improve the PoE2 experience. One that they've been doing with guaranteed gems and supports from specific encounters throughout the campaign. Those kinds of things are all great as long as they're applied regardless of league.

"

KaosuRyoko#1633 wrote:

Makes sense. I didn't really think a different name would change anything but i was curious.

"

SaintLessLegend#6078 wrote:

Although the disappointment more comes from feeling like GGG cut corners to avoid balancing two economies; I get why. Mind you, I enjoy the souls series and games like elden ring or Monster Hunter that have an emphasis on solo but challenging/rewarding gameplay through knowledge/experience. Yet that stems from the fact that each of those economies are based on a self-driven one. It's why it feels balanced despite being challenging.

Ah yeah but see, they aren't cutting corners. They are intentionally prioritizing the health of trade because they also believe (as evidenced by the SSF announcement post linked earlier) that fracturing the trade league will weaken or kill it. Just a matter of the core philosophy of the game. None of your suggestions are inherently unreasonable, they're just contrary to the core philosophy. Unfortunately an offline client would likely be years of effort and is contrary to another core philosophy they seem to have about the value of secret information and community discovery. Also not an inherently bad idea by any means, just unfortunately unrealistic in the context of PoE2.

"

SaintLessLegend#6078 wrote:

I don't think I have ever heard anyone say there wasn't enough loot drops in a souls-like; Despite complaints about the difficulty...

Well there's a core difference there, the large majority of drops in a Souls game are guaranteed from a boss/enemy. There's some stuff that's random drops from specific mobs, but those are like 1% drop rate, not 0.000001% drop rate. Which would be a way to improve the PoE2 experience. One that they've been doing with guaranteed gems and supports from specific encounters throughout the campaign. Those kinds of things are all great as long as they're applied regardless of league.

I agree, comparing drop rate percentages or fixed drops is not necessarily a fair comparison. I wouldn't expect PoE SSF to copy and paste Dark Souls for instance. What I meant by a balanced self-driven economy. Is that the balance is reflected by the standard mode you have.

The philosophy part is understandable and I just put my two cents in cause they said PoE2 was supposed to cater to newer players and ease them into the PoE universe whilst keeping the depth of PoE1. There is a reason given that philosophy I haven't made this post for PoE1...

I get the concern around the trade economy but when you reflect on older ARGPs despite having that foundation of self-driven first trade second... You still saw/see healthy trading. Even D2R is hovering around ~50k player still and people still have a trading community revolving around ladder seasons.

I don't believe having an SSF as I've pointed out... Would kill trade league. I said this to another I believe. That in all my leagues in PoE1. I normally played until roughly one or two weeks left. Never ever had an issue with trade even at sub 10k players. Never had issue with getting the final pieces of my gear...(edit: if you add the current currency/market options in PoE2. Allowing for players offline to still, "trade". It's even better than PoE1 for getting that gear.)

If you compare numbers on steam chart or just from memory. PoE2 could cut it's population in half and still essentially be better off or at the same level as an average league start for PoE1.

AND by in large I don't believe 50% of the player base would go to SSF if they balanced it as I said. Instead we might see more like 15-20% in my very rough guess/estimation. There'd be little if any at all impact on trade league.

To me it's just cutting corners to save on resources. They didn't want to add an SSF mode from what I remember. It was only because a margin of the community said they wanted it for so long that GGG finally caved. Although I do remember their was a divide upon its release. With some saying "finally!" and others saying "WTH is this!" lol. Even then people felt like SSF was just simply slapped together to satisfy a portion of the community. Like their now be quiet.

For me I get wanting to make something challenging and if the philosophy is Hardmode in some way, cool. Although, saying that loot drops being sparce is "good" design is so dumb to me(edit: I'm not saying you said this, just to clarify lol. I am talking about the philosophical design of how GGG has designed the current SSF). Like I would expect boss designs or unique puzzles etc... to be the root of that challenge. To say AHA! I finally defeated this content and got my "item". Not I wonder when I'm gonna find my next alchemy orb lmao, ya know.

...the whole game is for masochist :D

"

DarkDredd#2184 wrote:

...the whole game is for masochist :D

lmao! Does that mean I am a casual masochist...?

"

KaosuRyoko#1633 wrote:

Sure that's fair. The first few seasons I played PoE1 was self imposed SSF too because I wasn't sure I cared about the game enough to learn trade.

However, you are intentionally making the game harder by doing that. To me, that would be like refusing to use magic in any given RPG. You might do that either out of preference, or for a challenge, but you know that's not what the game is designed for it. So you wouldn't give feedback that the game should be balanced around removing magic, would you?

I tried trade and i noticed that my time and attention goes from playing the game to trading in game and that just not fun to me. So no trading with other players, no partying, etc. And then SSF was intoduced.

I dont want form game to be designed for my choice of game experience. I just want this game as it should be in devs minds. In single player.

"

de99ial#0161 wrote:

"

KaosuRyoko#1633 wrote:

Sure that's fair. The first few seasons I played PoE1 was self imposed SSF too because I wasn't sure I cared about the game enough to learn trade.

However, you are intentionally making the game harder by doing that. To me, that would be like refusing to use magic in any given RPG. You might do that either out of preference, or for a challenge, but you know that's not what the game is designed for it. So you wouldn't give feedback that the game should be balanced around removing magic, would you?

I tried trade and i noticed that my time and attention goes from playing the game to trading in game and that just not fun to me. So no trading with other players, no partying, etc. And then SSF was intoduced.

I dont want form game to be designed for my choice of game experience. I just want this game as it should be in devs minds. In single player.

Despite sharing sentiments towards your core philosophy. I believe it's this very way of thinking that has led us down the current industry path. Inflated prices to poorly optimised games. As well Less being given whilst demanding more out of our wallets. It's the same mentality we see with people buying cod back to back every year...

If GGG had it their way, Ruthless mode would of been the standard. If GGG had it their way Archnemesis mobs would of been the standard still. GGG has been balancing the game delusionally around the top 1% of players/groups. Meanwhile punishing the average player who can barely complete a third of the league's rewards.

Tell me how does it make sense. Please make it make sense, okay. SSF is minding its own business. They have nothing to do with Sanctum div-printing nor the endgame group farmers who all race to dominate the market early in a league. Then BAM 50-80% nerf to drop rates across the board. In what capacity was SSF going too fast that they required a nerf to drop rates. The economies are shared so changing the % on trade and the rest are impacted...

In what world was SSF going sooo fast that Archnemesis or Ruthless mode would of been required; Let alone a nerf to drop rates?

You want to slow the game down, cool. You want to add challenge, cool. I'm all for that. Although do it with a foundation that is "fun". Not oh we just gonna reduce drop rates cause we desperately want to counter power creep and you should see x1 alchemy orb by the time you finish the campaign...

My goal for league rewards was just to get T1-outfit, okay. Then I get hit with this 50% reduce drop rates and told be happy with one alchemy orb throughout the campaign! Like what?!?! Make it make sense please.

EDIT: Even in PoE2, never and I mean never have I seen such a collective hatred for getting your ascension... Even labs never got this much hate. Sekhemas is Sanctum and Sanctum was hated in PoE1. Somehow someone thought it was a good design to use one of the most hated league mechanics as the Ascension trials to replace labs. It makes me laugh man! You can't make this stuff up! Someone in the drawing room literally said, Sanctum should be the next Ascension trials like it was a good idea.. AND THEY DID IT! You know you can sometimes understand or sympathize with someone's brainrot but this... this... There are no mathematical formulas or philsophical paths that could be taken. I could achieve oneness with the universe and KNOW ALL and still not comprehend how these people thought this was a good idea...