Casualization worries

"

AbyssianOne#1625 wrote:

Sorry, I guess you need to tag sarcasm for people to understand it. I was making fun of all the people who genuinely feel that way.

As soon as a character can walk through T16 scaling abyss maps and wipe out pretty much everything on screen with a single attack I lose all interest in playing that character. Without genuine challenge, there's no point. It's just clicking a cookie eternally to get more imaginary monies.

Didnt read the full thread lol mb

"

theRoyal#6210 wrote:

I hate to say this, but I have to turn this back around on you so that there's no confusion about what I'm saying. I think you are missing the point(s) I and others have been making.

Can you max out the entire tree, y/n?
>Y
Will you progress in mapping to augment further mapping by allocating points along a path, y/n?
>Y
Will there be some people who don't even bother to try completing the atlas?
>Y, there always will be
Will this mean we effectively have only one mapping build at end-game for everyone, y/n?
>Y
So, if you have the feeling of "building" a mapping experience (atlas customization) only as you are progressing and unlocking the tree because you specifically don't have everything unlocked, what happens once you do have it all unlocked? Did the "path" you took, let's say, focusing more on a "beefy rare enemy farming" build, lose all significance because you ended up taking all the other nodes too?
The answer here, unfortunately, is also Yes.

As I highlighted in previous posts: without the opportunity cost, there's no real weight to the choice. Further, without that, there's no meaningful player expression in the tree....aaaand moreover, again, it's not even a "tree" if you can just take everything.

Can you max out the entire tree, y/n?
>Y -> no problem
Will you progress in mapping to augment further mapping by allocating points along a path, y/n?
>Y -> same as a 100 out of 300 tree
Will there be some people who don't even bother to try completing the atlas?
>Y wouldnt be different, doesnt matter imo
Will this mean we effectively have only one mapping build at end-game for everyone, y/n?
>N -> There are multiple split nodes. I dont see much difference between lets say making cluster that gives X and one that gives Y instead of one giving X or Y. In the end you have to choose one. The only difference it the amount of thinking you need to put in to make the full tree, since one is just 100 single choices (maybe a bit more complex cause synergies) and one has to also optimize the paths you take. So one might be more fun for players enjoying the planning aspect, and the other one is more approachable for everyone. But I dont see any "Illusion of choice" here as long as the choices are actual choices and not all "Make content easier vs make it harder and more rewarding" cause then its not a choice as soon as your gear is good enough. But thats not the tree systems faul, but just bad notable design, it would be the same if there were 2 clusters, one making content easier one making it more rewarding... Youd just not take the make it easier cluster as soon as you are strong enough. Their current design is just more compact, and i mean 95% are also just following some kind of meta tree thats best for their current build no matter what the tree looks like... From my knowledge in PoE1 theres also like (depending on what you wanne farm) a meta tree that just takes most nodes of a few mechanics to maximize profit.

Like look at the old tree we had. It was just "take more rares and waystone mod effect". You couldnt take all, but smh I always ended up with the same nodes. Maybe change it in the beginning to farm some essences, or use shrines while I need power...

"

KäsePizza#3007 wrote:

I dont see much difference between 100 nodes and 50 points and 100 nodes split onto 50 nodes with 50 points... There is the same choice in both, just that pathing nodes are shared. If its not enough choice they can just make all "notables" on the tree choice.

Also comparing it with PoE1 tree wont work cause they have split out "mechanic" trees for breach and stuff in PoE2. So you cant really choose what to run... so as long as they are not combining it all, you cant really make good upside/downside nodes that like increase one mechanic and reduce another one. But i dont think thats the problem of having all passives allocatable, rather having distinct trees.

Okay, I'm not sure what that first part means but, it reads like something similar that Scaeva said. Please clarify further.
My understanding of the information given to us by GGG for the upcoming 0.5 update is: every single node on the atlas passive tree can be obtained at max atlas points.

As for what you mentioned in the second part:
I don't see how splitting off the some league mechanics has any bearing on the topic. I'm totally fine with. My poe friends are fine with it. I don't see how it changes the fact that the poe2 tree as it stands now, and what is shown of the updated tree still does in fact modify in-map mechanics.
Just because there is a division between major and minor league mechanics on the tree, doesn't mean the main tree doesn't (and won't) have interactions that modify the mapping experience.
For example, this is a snapshot of the atlas tree:

There's a rare monster, magic pack, shrines, and strongbox focus on the left side of the tree, and other focuses elsewhere on the tree. This concept exists, and was shown on the upcoming version of the tree. Now, just imagine that you can just take all of them, and hopefully, you understand where the critique comes from.

"

KäsePizza#3007 wrote:

Lets just see how it feels before judging it.

No, thanks. idk why people use this line in a context like this.

The issue with a large atlas like in poe1, where you only allocate a small fraction of the points, is that in order to change what you are trying to do you have to unspec a lot of (travel) points. This can be somewhat tedious and to band-aid fix this issue GGG introduced two additional atlas templates to switch between.

Now in poe2 they instead let you allocate all of the nodes in the large tree to prevent this issue but still have some nodes that allow for multiple choices to switch between. More importantly though, they dont include any nodes for the main mechanics within the large tree but give each a smaller and seperate tree on the sides. Those are where you find most of the choices to be made.

I'd argue that compared to most of the mechanics on the poe1 passive tree there is even more choices to be made here. If you look at expedition for example on the poe1 passive tree you only really make two choice:
1. Taking the "Extreme Archeology" keystone for bigger explosions
2. choosing which of the 4 npc's to prioritize in map encounters
The rest of the nodes are just straight upsides like +% chance to spawn the mechanic in maps or increased artifacts dropped



Let me know what you think / if im making sense.

"

KäsePizza#3007 wrote:

Can you max out the entire tree, y/n?
>Y -> no problem
Will you progress in mapping to augment further mapping by allocating points along a path, y/n?
>Y -> same as a 100 out of 300 tree
Will there be some people who don't even bother to try completing the atlas?
>Y wouldnt be different, doesnt matter imo

Yea, the point of this section was to better highlight where the issue, or percieved issue, is. This was just a method to agree with you so you/we can all easily follow the chain of logic. It wasn't something you were supposed to find issues with, because I also don't.

"

KäsePizza#3007 wrote:

Will this mean we effectively have only one mapping build at end-game for everyone, y/n?
>N -> There are multiple split nodes. I dont see much difference between lets say making cluster that gives X and one that gives Y instead of one giving X or Y. In the end you have to choose one.

Whoooaaa, back up. All that other stuff you say after this section might be all well and good if this is what is actually going to happen.
So, let's all make sure we have the same base of information, eh?
My knowledge of what GGG has done with the tree is that every node shown here,
(friend gave this to me)
is allocatable at maximum points, with the exception of the 5 league trees because that hasn't been said from what I remember.
Now, for the key point: are you saying that these notable passives are all - or most are - customizable? Not like 3 jewel sockets near your starting point you play around with in the regular passive tree, but like, each one becomes a cluster or notable that does what our current tree "sections" typically does? (i.e. - shrines, essences, rares vs pack focus, etc)

"

Argonlo#6237 wrote:

The issue with a large atlas like in poe1, where you only allocate a small fraction of the points, is that in order to change what you are trying to do you have to unspec a lot of (travel) points. This can be somewhat tedious and to band-aid fix this issue GGG introduced two additional atlas templates to switch between.

Well, sure, but that's just something that won't be the case for long. The original atlas tree, when it first came out 5y ago - or however many years ago now - was in a similar state that the current poe2 tree is in now. Just takes time.
But again, the quantity of nodes or selection is not the topic.

"

Now in poe2 they instead let you allocate all of the nodes in the large tree to prevent this issue but still have some nodes that allow for multiple choices to switch between. More importantly though, they dont include any nodes for the main mechanics within the large tree but give each a smaller and seperate tree on the sides. Those are where you find most of the choices to be made.

I'd argue that compared to most of the mechanics on the poe1 passive tree there is even more choices to be made here. If you look at expedition for example on the poe1 passive tree you only really make two choice:
1. Taking the "Extreme Archeology" keystone for bigger explosions
2. choosing which of the 4 npc's to prioritize in map encounters
The rest of the nodes are just straight upsides like +% chance to spawn the mechanic in maps or increased artifacts dropped

Let me know what you think / if im making sense.

Yea, this is new information for me if it wasn't obvious from the last post I made above.
Most of my knowledge comes from the livestream announcement, and the rest was a friend who filled me in on things I missed.
Can you confirm some of these tree mechanics and how they eliminate the original issue for me? Like, just name another livestream or youtube video where someone goes through it. Also, do you know if these details were part of the original announcement?

"

theRoyal#6210 wrote:

Can you confirm some of these tree mechanics and how they eliminate the original issue for me? Like, just name another livestream or youtube video where someone goes through it. Also, do you know if these details were part of the original announcement?

Besides the few nodes that are shown in the GGG livestream im not aware of any other sources of Information. I just know how it currently works and I assume they will continue to function that way, just with more nodes.

In a new interview J.Rogers mentions that they put some of the choices that would normally be on the tree into the new atlas-class system, where you choose 4 out of 12 "keystone like" bonuses, with 3 total classes to choose from.
They only showed a few of those so far but I think a lot of the potential for endgame customisation is found with those and they have the opportunity cost/ hard choices youre looking for.

"

theRoyal#6210 wrote:

Apparently, the atlas tree is going to be fully unlockable.(?) Meaning that every single atlas passive is allocatable with points, thus making sure there is absolutely NO opportunity cost when it comes to endgame/mapping, unless we're looking at the 1 to 3 "choices" we make with the 3 Masters. (and that's per master, when you can only run with one master's effects)

Hello theRoyal,

First off, your many supporter packs DO support GGG (Tencent) and you handled that with more grace than perhaps I would. The paying few support the many who don't.

Second, the below assumes I actually understand what this whole thread is about:

This is going to be a tough nut to crack as GGG has been marked as a potential "Evergreen" game by Tencent which are titles that generate large, recurring revenue for many years (rather than peaking briefly and fading). This means strategizing to appeal to a broader base of players who ideally will become paying players.

Your title "Casualization worries" is apt as from a veteran viewpoint as this is absolutely the last thing you want (regardless of how diplomatic you are being).

Opportunity cost causes hard decisions to be made that are not easily reversed. I would apply the definition to the hardcore/veteran path player to be: sacrifice, commitment, consequences. You've seen that echoed in other threads or by players agreeing with you: if everything is given and accessible then where is the challenge? The gravitas of the game has potentially been eliminated or severely reduced.

However, circling back to your badge of supporter packs: This is the greatest weapon the dedicated veterans have. They purchase a significant amount of supporter packs which is the sole reason this for-profit game exists. You even had a person in this thread thank you for your many contributions so they could just slide by as cheap as possible.

Anyway, if I had to bet a dollar on the angle that GGG is taking it would be that all points are able to be allocated although only specific areas could be chosen at any time. The veterans are going to loathe this solution if its real as it dilutes the sacrifice, commitment, and consequence from the game so ignore the "Everyone Wins" tagline LOL

"

Argonlo#6237 wrote:

"

theRoyal#6210 wrote:

Can you confirm some of these tree mechanics and how they eliminate the original issue for me? Like, just name another livestream or youtube video where someone goes through it. Also, do you know if these details were part of the original announcement?

Besides the few nodes that are shown in the GGG livestream im not aware of any other sources of Information. I just know how it currently works and I assume they will continue to function that way, just with more nodes.

In a new interview J.Rogers mentions that they put some of the choices that would normally be on the tree into the new atlas-class system, where you choose 4 out of 12 "keystone like" bonuses, with 3 total classes to choose from.
They only showed a few of those so far but I think a lot of the potential for endgame customisation is found with those and they have the opportunity cost/ hard choices youre looking for.

Alright, I went back and re-educated myself on what I missed in the live-stream.
Frankly, I'm a little miffed that I was right to worry about exactly everything I was talking about, I would have rather continued being high on the delusions of my hopium.

As previously mentioned in the OP and more later on in this thread, the masters are really just a more in depth and different version of Maven/Exarch/EoW witnessing in poe1's atlas game play, and has nothing to do with selective content augmentations we would typically expect with the atlas tree. The new information, for me right now, is the fact that a few notables/keystones on the tree have between 2-3 options for HOW you want them to affect the thing they are supposed to affect. (i.e. - you go for all the shrine clusters, then get shrine keystones that appeal to your style of game play or your character build)
In the end, unless these new Keystones have you select between 3 different content types, instead of 1 content type but in the 3 slightly different ways, then every single thing previously stated still holds.

Quote from the stream: "earlier we talked about how the modifier choice on the tree allow you to still have an in-game atlas build but we didn't think that was quite enough." He then proceeds to introduce the masters an their mechanics, we know the rest. The key word here is "still". It means, in context, that they knew that just having all the passives on the tree willy-nilly, inherently means there's no real, weighted, and meaningful choices to be made on the tree. Hence the need for some keystone mini-options and then the master options.

On the Masters:
Yes, these are the only real choices you make when you choose the kind of content you want to be doing on the atlas. It should be said and noted that all the customization and planning that we've done on the atlas trees in previous leagues, including poe2's, has been condensed, quarantined, and simplified onto this new system simply due to the fact that you can grab all of the passives. I'll lift an argument from a friend and slot it here by saying,"it's all extremely controllable by ggg, all you're really choosing here is 1/3 options, five times per master. Hehe xD choose between 1/3 but dw, it's definitely not Diablo 4" /sarcasm

In conclusion, still not a good look for player freedom/expression. It could be the case that the main atlas tree is simply in this state temporarily until 1.0 due to a lack of completed content, thus making the shown tree effectively the "skeleton" before the real thing in 1.0, but it's still not a good look and I hope it gets changed. Either get rid of the main tree if there's not going to be any opportunity cost/expression at all, or stick to the usual.

"

600lbpanther#3839 wrote:

Hello theRoyal,

Honestly, your post was so cordial and started off mentioning supporter packs like that other guy, that I automatically assumed it was elite-level sarcasm/irony-posting.
Clearly not though, so, thanks. 👍
We can only hope GGG listens to my/our concerns...

btw, I don't actually post much on the forums so I'll ask: is posting with a bunch of supporter pack titles considered elitist or a faux-pas or something like that? I would've thought it was common since it's just the default setting for a user's forum post, but I can see now that it's customizable in my account settings, website-side. Is it customary to shorten or cut a few of these symbols?