"
Problem is I doubt GGG would even prioritize adding a ruthless mode
Absolutely true.
Ruthless should not be a priority.
Game needs core content and changes, that comes first.
My hope is, based on the things they've said in recent interviews, that the coming 6 months will have multiple changes to the core game, to not only content but also balance. Hope they will stick to their words.
|
Posted byDenimBoy#1964on May 16, 2026, 7:45:07 AM
|
"
Hope they will stick to their words.
Instead of how they stuck to their word about the slower, more challenging combat, the better visual clarity, the not bogging the game down in tons of unfriendly to new players mechanics that even long term players explain by saying to go find a several hour video series on youtube if you want to understand, and making ground loot be a valuable thing again instead of needing loot filters.
And I wasn't saying Ruthless mode not being a priority would be a good thing. They're not spending their time adding the missing classes and content and improving the god awful excuse for a story, they're using it to make dozens of new runes and gambling crafting mechanics and do all the things they said they weren't going to do this time around.
|
Posted byAbyssianOne#1625on May 16, 2026, 8:04:05 AM
|
"
"
Hope they will stick to their words.
Instead of how they stuck to their word about the slower, more challenging combat, the better visual clarity, the not bogging the game down in tons of unfriendly to new players mechanics that even long term players explain by saying to go find a several hour video series on youtube if you want to understand, and making ground loot be a valuable thing again instead of needing loot filters.
I would, as all of us should, judge that when 1.0 hits.
We're still in EA so I give them a pass for many things that I dont like: like the ones you've listed above.
In simpler words: they've been adding new content way faster and in larger portionts than they have ability to balance that shit.
They quit their own schedule and decided that we will not get another big update before 1.0 because they wanna focus on polishing current content and balance.
If they wont be able to deliver that after 6 months into 1.0 then there's no excuse.
I come to peace with that we wont see similar challenge like in 0.1. For sure not during the campaign.
BUT, and its a big BUT, if they deliver that challenge, changes to how the combat flows, how visuals matter in later stages of the game (mid/late end-game) then I would be willing to accept that as a form of a compromise
And for the record: when it comes to loot and loot filters, to this day I strongly believe that the changes they've done with patches after 0.2 (when streamers cried and rage-quit for the "fun" aRPG like Last Epoch) were really damaging.
I dont know if they've panicked or not but for sure these loot buff changes are another main reason why we are today discussing even a possibility of adding ruthless to the game that is about to get fourth patch and is not even out yet.
Last edited by DenimBoy#1964 on May 16, 2026, 8:37:55 AM
|
Posted byDenimBoy#1964on May 16, 2026, 8:36:18 AM
|
"
Problem is I doubt GGG would even prioritize adding a ruthless mode. Look at what they spend their time on. 160 more runes, each with a bonded aspect for a single ascendancy. When we already have so many runes that are just trash anyway. They spent how long working on another layer of more trash runes, crafting, and gambling? They chose to spend that time that way instead of working on the missing classes, ascendancies, weapon types, the basic ability to switch between controller and kb+m that virtually every other game including indie games has.
Yeah, they haven't even made mouse controls work properly yet, and it's been two years. They would actually fix a lot of the community's dissatisfaction if they just added Ruthless.
|
Posted byBurn4#0434on May 16, 2026, 9:57:41 AM
|
"
You seem completely confused about how this works. Ruthless would just be an optional modifier to make the campaign difficult again, and it would literally run inside the exact same trade league. It is simply a choice for players who want a punishing challenge instead of casual slop, and it completely preserves the shared economy. Since its existence doesn't change the base game at all, calling it a bad sign for 1.0 makes zero sense. More choices and optional difficulty layers are always a healthy sign for a game.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're suggesting but as much as I'd like a ruthless mode (or a challenge mode that is not hardcore or SSF because I don't like either of these set ups), I wouldn't play it if it was in the same trade league as regular mode players. This is not just a combat game, it's a resource collecting and trading game. I don't want to put myself at a competitive disadvantage to peers. I think it would need to be its own league exclusive to ruthless mode players. They could even jazz it up by offering a few ruthless mode only uniques or items or whatever. But yeah, they're probably busy making another 320 runes for 1.0 instead.
|
Posted bySkutz123#5377on May 16, 2026, 12:04:23 PM
|
"
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're suggesting but as much as I'd like a ruthless mode (or a challenge mode that is not hardcore or SSF because I don't like either of these set ups), I wouldn't play it if it was in the same trade league as regular mode players. This is not just a combat game, it's a resource collecting and trading game. I don't want to put myself at a competitive disadvantage to peers. I think it would need to be its own league exclusive to ruthless mode players. They could even jazz it up by offering a few ruthless mode only uniques or items or whatever. But yeah, they're probably busy making another 320 runes for 1.0 instead.
You can completely forget about a separate league. GGG is never going to create an entirely separate league infrastructure and split the player base just for an optional campaign mode.
Your fear of a competitive disadvantage is an easy problem to solve without splitting the economy. The devs can easily compensate players for the harder campaign by dropping high-value rewards at the end. For example, guaranteeing a Level 5 Uncut Gem from the final act boss would instantly bridge the gap. That alone offsets any time lost during leveling and gives you the exact currency boost you need to stay competitive once you hit maps.
Since it would still be completely optional, it just comes down to what you personally value more. I am not competing in the economy and I am not racing for anything, so I would play Ruthless every single time. It's just hard to find the motivation to replay a campaign that feels too easy and watered down when an extra layer of difficulty would make the whole run actually worth doing.
|
Posted byBurn4#0434on May 16, 2026, 12:51:31 PM
|
Ruthless is a bad idea. It automatically shows there's not enough friction in the game. This is a fundamental failure in design. A good design should be able to scale quite near forever and both Players and NPCs use the same systems. There's no magical 70% DR Uber boss interaction.
I mentioned something similar on Delve a very long time ago in how the enemies should scale in both offense and defense. Scaling both gives additional friction as you go which not only feels more natural but improves build concepts for that type of content.
The easiest method of adding friction to late game builds is to simply increase enemy level but this doesn't work if the enemy defense can be trivialized. Enemies that stay alive longer naturally create more problems for the player. This includes bosses.
"
Spot on.
Talking of big numbers, I'd also like to point out how the efficiency numbers look between the 3 boss kill times Mark has specified.
The player that kills in 8 seconds versus the average of 2 minutes has an increased efficiency of up to 1400% (that's 15x times faster)
The player that kills in 8 seconds versus the lowest time of 4 minutes has an efficiency increase of up to 2900% (that's 30x times faster)
Just let that sink in.
And what did it cost? Just knowing a few basic things about how scaling works. That's all. No real time investment, no real cost.
What do we get rewarded with? Our experience cheapened significantly.
I know I'm repeating myself a lot but I just want to drive this home as much and as clearly as possible.
It's natural for players to sacrifice defense for offense as they get better and learn mechanics.
It's like that for nearly every game with RPG elements. But how someone can see a spread of that size and not realize there's a huge problem is something I don't understand. I didn't play 0.4 but the only boss mechanics I ever really saw were Act 1 and 2 from 0.1 before they nerf'd them.
I have no idea what the Pinnacle boss mechanics are because I killed them with one Flame Blast.
"Never trust floating women." -Officer Kirac
|
Posted byXzorn#7046on May 16, 2026, 12:56:30 PM
|
"
Ruthless is a bad idea. It automatically shows there's not enough friction in the game. This is a fundamental failure in design... I have no idea what the Pinnacle boss mechanics are because I killed them with one Flame Blast.
If you genuinely hate bosses being trivialized, your "Ruthless = No" stance makes zero sense.
The base campaign is tuned to be easier so casual players and streamers have an accessible path to maps. GGG softening the game for the mainstream audience is exactly why an optional, harder campaign modifier is needed for veterans who actually want a challenge.
Turning down an optional mode that forces you to engage with boss mechanics while simultaneously complaining that the base game has no friction is a massive contradiction. You are actively arguing against the exact difficulty option you claim the game is missing.
|
Posted byBurn4#0434on May 16, 2026, 1:27:31 PM
|
"
https://youtu.be/P2-BLJQCeWo?t=5261
I'm very glad Ziggy D asked them that question, because it goes to show what their thought process is on this.
"
Honestly I would say my experience at this point with understanding how to gear my character and build my build at that point you know sometimes it's honestly 8 seconds and sometimes it's 20 seconds and it's like is it ever really more than that and then you're like and then you get that with all of our obviously a lot of our designers play and a bunch of people and then you go and You look at the stats and you're like, "Oh, it's 119 seconds average. That's 2 minutes. That's what we intended for it to be." And so the average across every and that's the average, which means there's some people taking 4 minutes and whatnot.
And so it's actually like, oh, that okay, the numbers are not as bad.
And yeah, it turns out if you know what you're doing and you are good and you play a lot, uh, you you kind of kill things quickly.
Um, I know a lot of people might be like, ah, you should have that be flatter because what the hell? An 8-second fight's not necessarily fun, right? you're not engaging with any mechanics and stuff.
And some people are like, "No, if you're that powerful, you're that powerful. And if you know what you're doing, have it be that fast." Right? So, it's a bit of um thing where some people want the way less um variance between character power, but also then that feeds into the endgame of yeah, you want characters that feel like gods among gods among gods, right? Like you you can do that, but it is again just comes back to who you know, do you have item X, item Y, item Z of different kinds. So when things are too cheaply OP as in almost free and I don't mean economically, I mean like as in you just your general time to earn. Um generally that has to come down. Um and I think that really is the message overall of like you know if it cost you a lot then yeah you can be a god. If it didn't cost you very much maybe that's going to be something that we wouldn't consider nerfing.
Mark is saying that if you know what you're doing and you are good and you play a lot you will kill things quickly. But is that really true? How much of it is true?
Alright, I'll do a little self evaluation because all my experiences were as he described, under 8 second kills for all bosses I've encountered. Let's take them one by one:
"if you know what you're doing"
How much did I really need to know? The knowledge I've applied to my choices were as follows:
1) What has the highest damage multiplier as a skill?
2) The more More multipliers you can get the more damage you deal
3) Tested out skills as I got them and decided based on how they performed and felt.
4) + level of gems
This is the general framework I've worked by, with a bit of variance but overall, that's what my thought process was.
"and you are good"
Am I really that good for those 4 points I've made earlier? Is my thought process really all that genius there? I don't think so, honestly.
"and you play a lot"
I most definitely didn't play a lot, I haven't touched any of the chase items... didn't even try to. Nothing that would warrant "became a god" status.
So then, did I really deserve to vaporize bosses before I could even see what their script was? Absolutely not. Not even close. And as Jonathan keeps trying to say... first time encounters with bosses should take more akin to that average Mark mentions of 2 minutes they supposedly get. but I didn't get that at all. On multiple builds of my own making that weren't even particularly special or all that smart.
The only time I ever got similar times to what they've mentioned there was in Act 1 of update 0.1. And I've had the same knowledge then too.
"Um, I know a lot of people might be like, ah, you should have that be flatter because what the hell? An 8-second fight's not necessarily fun, right? you're not engaging with any mechanics and stuff."
Yes, Mark, the gaps between these experiences is extreme and you should totally have them be flatter. I'm not even talking about 150+ hour ultra farmers here with the best in slot gear... that's not where the real problem is.
Was it fun for you to kill all bosses in less then 20 seconds? Was it fun when you didn't engage with any mechanics? Didn't you guys make them so we could engage with them? What purpose do they serve otherwise... just to kill the most casual gamers?
"So when things are too cheaply OP as in almost free and I don't mean economically, I mean like as in you just your general time to earn. Um generally that has to come down."
Yes, a large majority are cheaply OP and don't require large time investments. It's the way you designed the systems that make it so... the more multipliers, the + levels on gems and so on. It's like a cheat code for people that are mildly awake. You don't need to be a genius.
I'm sure all of you reading this don't consider me a genius for those 4 points I've mentioned I follow as an untold rule, so then... when Mark says they look at those average times and it looks good to them... who are they evaluating there? The most casual gamers that don't even read skill descriptions and put whatever drops on the ground on them? Wasn't D4 supposed to be the game that's more for the casual audience? Why are they using this average time as a guide for balancing the game?
In my opinion, they are using the data they have completely wrong. Especially for balancing purposes.
But there's a really interesting part to this too. If they are following these averages.... well... things will change drastically soon. After this next update, build guides will be easily available to everyone, with far less friction then before. Even some of the most casual gamers will be able to access at the very least the base of my 4 rules there, and even more.
I do wonder... how will numbers change in this league?
Depending on how obvious the option is in game (they did say it's a bit hidden, hopefully not too hidden) I'm more then certain the average time will drop significantly. No doubts about it.
Hey i agree and i think - big part of it is "fake data" which is created by leechers and RMT - check my take on: https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/3931886 - im making analytics of how leeching affects game balance and economy - as so many "fake" 90 levels ends without resources to "compete" bosses as example.
|
Posted bysaashaa#5518on May 16, 2026, 2:08:42 PM
|
"
"
Ruthless is a bad idea. It automatically shows there's not enough friction in the game. This is a fundamental failure in design... I have no idea what the Pinnacle boss mechanics are because I killed them with one Flame Blast.
If you genuinely hate bosses being trivialized, your "Ruthless = No" stance makes zero sense.
The base campaign is tuned to be easier so casual players and streamers have an accessible path to maps. GGG softening the game for the mainstream audience is exactly why an optional, harder campaign modifier is needed for veterans who actually want a challenge.
Turning down an optional mode that forces you to engage with boss mechanics while simultaneously complaining that the base game has no friction is a massive contradiction. You are actively arguing against the exact difficulty option you claim the game is missing.
They might be doing the same thing the alternate leveling path for alts "campaign skip" haters are doing. Just saying no I don't like it and contradicting themselves all along the way. Kind of like the people who want a big challenge but majority play the most meta stuff each league and refuse to challenge themselves. They will never balance the game around the 12 hour a day crowd because it would alienate 3/4 of the players base. The ones you are completely shocked to hear take 2+ minutes on bosses. Not to mention, adding ruthless divides the community in another layer causing the group enjoyers and the trade enjoyers more problems.
|
|
