Innovating Design LE is Missing

[DJSamhein]

@Kulze

For example one of the first games implementing a ‘heavily immersive UI’ is ‘Surpreme Commander’. But it was done extremely subtle. You have a main unit there, the ‘Commander’, which when you loose it… you’ve lost. The UI is the cockpit of said Commander unit as you as the player are the pilot and are on the front of the battlefield.

Instead the innovative aspect nowadays is given ‘HighFleet’ instead for executing this concept ‘right’. You’re not only the captain of your fleet but your UI is designed like a steampunk-designed control-area with all you need information wise.

Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn’t be referring to Supreme Commander in the first place and it would have fallen to oblivion.
It might not be general knowedge and many people may mistakenly attribute it to wrong game (this is quite common in many different media), but it wasn’t forgotten and plenty of people give it credit.

It’s just like players that aren’t aware of gaming history playing BG3 and saying “Wow, so many different endings, that’s very innovative” only to be corrected by more knowledgeable players with “Actually…”.

@Kulze

Innovation is a very unfair thing… because the one credited sadly is often not the one actually thinking it up. If it were then I would say the world would be a vastly better place.

No. The credit you’re referring to isn’t to innovating but to achieving success.
The person/game that actually achieved success gets a different kind of credit, usually more visible to the general population. But the innovator still gets credit.

[Heavy]

@Kulze

The depth comes from the combination of available options.
Yes, your basic melee skill of some sorts obviously can’t equip a ‘channeling’ support. Because it’s not channeling. They are fairly straight forward (mostly, some exceptions). But… you can use a melee channeling skill to then trigger a spell totem which has a freely chosen spell in it that then trigger another skill on crit. Convoluted beyond end… but doable, and likely a crap outcome. Still, a viable option that could actually get you through the whole game if you know what you do.

In LE the options are fixed. ‘This skill can trigger that’… the end.
This reduces options for combinations massively. Hence depth is achieved by the PoE system through that alone in quite the massive way.

As said, the system of LE isn’t bad, but it inherently lacks the variety of build options which for example Grim Dawn or Path of Exile provide. Their systems are set up to focus on that heavily. LE simply has no supporting mechanics - yet - to allow that. Hence more ‘shallow’.

Having some sort of chain triggering skills is nothing that LE doesn’t have, you can do that in LE as well, I can just off the top of my head name you at least a handful. Like Chtonic Fissure → Chaos Bolt - Rip Blood/Harvest or Leap Slam, Earthquake Avlanche

Yes LE’s Skill Spec Trees are less extensive, but more handcrafted, which in my book is a massive upside. Those fixed options usually come with much higher quality and more interesting things you can do to build around them.

“Build variety” is very similar in LE compared to PoE. Within their more limited set of classes/masteries with a limtied nubmer of skills LE has insane amoutns of build variety, way more than PoE in some aspects.

The exact same skill can be played vastly different in LE. In PoE the variety within one given skill is much much lower.

So at the end of the day PoE probably does have more variety, but its always 10+ years out.

Anyway, this doesn’t lead anywhere anyway. Matter of fact is, we seem to disagree what innovative is and what not, I just named a few things I think LE innovated in, some more small, some a little bit bigger. I could name even more systems or features which I think they innovated.

Innovation is not always coming up with an entirely new idea, but putting an existing concept and flipping it on the head for a vastly different outcome or experience, which I think LE did in many many aspects.

[Kulze]

@Heavy

Having some sort of chain triggering skills is nothing that LE doesn’t have, you can do that in LE as well

Yes, the 10 different fixed skills interacting in this way nod very mildly towards the 10000 combinations strong group on the other end of the room

It’s simply a magnitude of difference there. But the common player doesn’t often see since you need game knowledge.

@Heavy

Yes LE’s Skill Spec Trees are less extensive, but more handcrafted, which in my book is a massive upside.

Depends if you like the sandbox environment or the guided experience more.

Flavor.

Guided experiences are inherently less deep mechanically compared to a sandbox though, simply because the sandbox leaves the options open while the guided side curates them.

@Heavy

“Build variety” is very similar in LE compared to PoE.

Joke of the day sadly.
Give me a class+ascendancy and I’ll tell you 75 builds off the top of my head in PoE.

I can barely gather 30 together for each mastery in LE before they become 200c non-working combinations.

@Heavy

Matter of fact is, we seem to disagree what innovative is and what not

Yeah, that I can definitely agree on. And it’s mostly semantics. The named points were overall positives after all.

[DJSamhein]

@Kulze

Yes, the 10 different fixed skills interacting in this way nod very mildly towards the 10000 combinations strong group on the other end of the room

It’s simply a magnitude of difference there. But the common player doesn’t often see since you need game knowledge.

And you need them to actually be functional. Just chaining 20 different skills that don’t synergize doesn’t do anything.
So yes, you have 10000 combinations possible in PoE, but only 100 are actually viable. Is that real diversity?

@Kulze

Give me a class+ascendancy and I’ll tell you 75 builds off the top of my head in PoE.

And how many of those builds are almost the exact same as their counterpart in another class/ascendancy?
Yes, you have rain of arrows build in several class/ascendancy combinations, but in terms of gems they are mostly the same. They just change the passive tree and ascendancy and sometimes some of the gear.

[Heavy]

@Kulze

@Heavy

Yes LE’s Skill Spec Trees are less extensive, but more handcrafted, which in my book is a massive upside.

Depends if you like the sandbox environment or the guided experience more.

Flavor.

Guided experiences are inherently less deep mechanically compared to a sandbox though, simply because the sandbox leaves the options open while the guided side curates them.

Calling LE a guided experience is like an insult lol.

@Kulze

@Heavy

“Build variety” is very similar in LE compared to PoE.

Joke of the day sadly.
Give me a class+ascendancy and I’ll tell you 75 builds off the top of my head in PoE.

I can barely gather 30 together for each mastery in LE before they become 200c non-working combinations.

First off Class+Ascendency in PoE is very much less build defining and very often just gives you more defense or damage, but technicall you could play the same build with different class/ascendency. So there will be a lot of greyarea in between builds because technciall you can do them with mroe than one class. This alone makes the build variety sound better than it is in reality.

Secondly, as I mentioend already most skills in PoE are only played in one or maybe two very specific ways (most often Hit vs Ailment based) and just the shell around the skill will change (the defensive layers for example)
In LE the same skill, can already have up up to 3, 4 or 5 different builds, like completely different. Different elements, different supportive skills, different keynodes.

I played dozens of Erasing Strike variations and each of them played vastly different, despite having the “same” main skill.

So I am standing by this, that the only difference from PoE vs LE i nterms of build variety and amount of possible builds only comes from PoE being vastly longer in existence.

[Llama8]

@Kulze

Yes, the 10 different fixed skills interacting in this way nod very mildly towards the 10000 combinations strong group on the other end of the room

Really, you’re counting LE’s skill’s once but going with combinations for PoE? Is that not a trifle dishonest? Why not go with combinations on LE’s side as well? You’re better than that mate.

[TyphonBaan]

@DJSamhein

Just because D3 wasn’t a good game for more “serious” players doesn’t mean they didn’t do plenty of things right. For example, the loot goblins were a fun and innovative idea. Adventure mode was also an innovative idea, even if it was pretty unbalanced.

Kanai’s cube! I love Kanai’s cube!

Not only loot the goblins, but an actual goblin zone you could go to to kill a boss! The goblin giggle was immediately recognizable and generated an immediate excited response. D4 goblins suck in comparison. There is so much grunting in the game already, what is one more grunt?

And the Whimsyshire trolling <3 *chef’s kiss"

The armory. It’s divisive right now, but I think it’s the future for most ARPGs. The reason that I think that is because I think companies will come to realize that some portion of the playerbase simply doesn’t want to level another character at the particular point in time where they are bored with their current character. Giving them access to an armory allows them to try something new with the character they are currently playing, in a very low-effort way. In a season/cycle that is less interesting, that will result in a little bump in player retention and a big bump in player satisfaction because it serves the use case I already talked about, but also serves the use case of a player not being completely satisfied with a build they currently have, and want to try out another build (without having to remember every piece of gear and setting).

[Kulze]

@DJSamhein

And you need them to actually be functional. Just chaining 20 different skills that don’t synergize doesn’t do anything.

Yeah, which returns us to ‘viable to do all core content’ from ‘meta’ at least.

Which is good enough, agreed.
Much like some combinations in LE aren’t feasable despite being there, intentional or not.

@DJSamhein

And how many of those builds are almost the exact same as their counterpart in another class/ascendancy?

Well, how many wuld be in LE?
Is including Mana Strike as a melee similar enough to making Mana Strike a ranged skill but both as the core skill being used, with others supporting it?

As an example.

Or do we count Wraithlord Arbour as a wraith-build or a separate one?

The same goes in PoE… does a pure cyclone build and a cyclone build triggering shockwave count as the same build? They’re both ‘Cyclone builds’ after all.

Where to pull the line? Because we need to pull it for both games then.

And completely ignoring them would cause a reduction to ‘The skill’ rather then the adjustments causing that skill to feel entirely different. Because if I trigger spell totems which explode upon ending their time (or too many being there) while spinning it’s the same as casting hail of arrows in that case… and we both hopefully can agree that the style is quite differently played despite the same core skill being present.

@Heavy

Calling LE a guided experience is like an insult lol.

That system is definitely more guided then the freely interchangeable gem system of PoE which leans more towards a sandbox though?

It’s solely about that part after all… not the whole game. Story-wise and progression wise both are ‘guided’ experiences after all, while ‘Witcher 3’ in comparison would be very much a sandbox comparatively… not to speak of ‘Minecraft’ which actually is one to a massive part

@Heavy

First off Class+Ascendency in PoE is very much less build defining and very often just gives you more defense or damage,

No?
Absolutely and utterly… no?

Creating charges can be used for charge consuming skills, enabling them.
Overleech enables some mechanics for example as well, only working while leeching… which would usually interrupt nigh non-stop.
Corpse consuming for AoE enables interactions which would otherwise be non-viable since the area is so low that you can barely even interact with a single pack at once, making those non-viable.

And more.

The only reason is that since the system of LE is more guided - and hence curated - you don’t get free access to all skills at once, with only the respective fixed upside of the mastery having any effect.

A guided experience can enhance gameplay as much as a sandbox one, just differently.

Why do you even think this is a bad thing?
A story without guidance for example becomes a mess since everything is willy-nilly in order or needs extensive search for where to progress… the right mechanic at the right spot simply.

@Heavy

Secondly, as I mentioend already most skills in PoE are only played in one or maybe two very specific ways

As a meta.
As a viable manner you increase that count hundredfold.

The common behavior (since self-designed functioning builds are darn hard because of the complexity of the system) is to follow guides though, and that’s what limits the variety.
LE has vastly less need for guides since their system is smaller and allows less errors to happen.

Is this good? Is this bad? Flavor! What do you enjoy more?

@Llama8

Is that not a trifle dishonest?

Badly worded from my side, my mistake.

[DJSamhein]

@Kulze

Is including Mana Strike as a melee similar enough to making Mana Strike a ranged skill but both as the core skill being used, with others supporting it?

It’s not. You’re using the wrong comparisons there.

The comparison that should be made is:
-Is ED a different skill if you use it on a Trickster, an Ascendant or a Necro? The answer is no, barring some exception.
-Is warpath a different skill if you use it on a Paladin, FG or a VK? The answer is about 50/50. In plenty of cases it is, in plenty of cases it isn’t.

So those 75 builds you give for one class/ascension A + the 75 builds you give for class/ascension B aren’t 150 builds, but more like 90. Because most of them are the same. And when you add class/ascension C, it goes to 95.

So you don’t actually have 1500 different builds in PoE. You have about 200. Because most are the same, they just change passives and some gear. Like Heavy said, most are just a question of how tanky you want to be, how fast you want to be and/or how much damage you want to do. But the build itself (the gems) barely change, especially on the DPS skill.

@Kulze

Or do we count Wraithlord Arbour as a wraith-build or a separate one?

The same goes in PoE… does a pure cyclone build and a cyclone build triggering shockwave count as the same build? They’re both ‘Cyclone builds’ after all.

In both cases, they’re different.
But a trickster pure cyclone build is the same as a juggernaut pure cyclone build.
Like a Necro wraithlord is the same as a Lich wraithlord.

But a Paladin warpath build isn’t the same as a VK warpath build. Because VK interacts with skills in a very different way than Paladins.
A Falconer explosive trap build isn’t the same as a Marksman for the same reason.

@Kulze

No?
Absolutely and utterly… no?

Creating charges can be used for charge consuming skills, enabling them.
Overleech enables some mechanics for example as well, only working while leeching… which would usually interrupt nigh non-stop.
Corpse consuming for AoE enables interactions which would otherwise be non-viable since the area is so low that you can barely even interact with a single pack at once, making those non-viable.

And yet, the skill links remain the same for the vast majority. Those changes are external to the skill.

[Kulze]

@DJSamhein

The comparison that should be made is:
-Is ED a different skill if you use it on a Trickster, an Ascendant or a Necro? The answer is no, barring some exception.
-Is warpath a different skill if you use it on a Paladin, FG or a VK? The answer is about 50/50. In plenty of cases it is, in plenty of cases it isn’t.

That’s fair, agreed.

@DJSamhein

So those 75 builds you give for one class/ascension A + the 75 builds you give for class/ascension B aren’t 150 builds, but more like 90. Because most of them are the same. And when you add class/ascension C, it goes to 95.

Even in this case I could probably still mention 50 distinct builds per ascendancy right away. A big part is simply content quantity there. Obviously LE won’t be able to content with a system that’s been released for over a decade. Thinking that would be a bit nonsensical… otherwise EHG would’ve done a incomparably good job given that PoE is the product on the market in the genre with the highest depth and complexity… as well as highest amount of choices.
Which - besides some clear bad choices never being fixed - make it also a very bad experience for a newcomer though.

@DJSamhein

In both cases, they’re different.
But a trickster pure cyclone build is the same as a juggernaut pure cyclone build.
Like a Necro wraithlord is the same as a Lich wraithlord.

Yes, solely based on Cyclone I can name around 40 builds alone. Not to speak of spectre builds which have over 60 viable focused ones available. The around 5 skeleton focused ones, 3 types of SRS I know (as a core skill)
Spectre being clearly necromancer, a single skill named, Cyclone being usually slayer, duelist, templar or marauder. Not to speak of the more generic melee builds. Boneshatter and earthquake ones have several varieties which play quite different. The skills which allows builds to be based on buffing itself while dealing damage versus hard hitting ones. Some skills allow alternatives between AoE and single-damage as well… and the majority of them being able to functionaly changed in severe ways through several core uniques on top.

A ‘savior’ build for example is completely different from a ‘normal’ cyclone build in feel and execution. If you build them for bleed as well… same as for physical direct hit scaling builds with the same skill.

It’s simply that so so many options are viable nowadays that it’s become baffling, that’s been made better over the last… ~2 years a lot I would say.

Back around 8 years ago I would argue PoE had a similar build variety then LE, obviously the game as content to catch up… and does decently so. But the design direction imposes different limitations for LE compared to what they do for PoE simply. More ‘broken’ builds exist in poE on the other hand because of it.

@DJSamhein

And yet, the skill links remain the same for the vast majority. Those changes are external to the skill.

Not even those. You tend to include specific setups specifically for those mechanics to work. Be it singular support skills exchanged which make the skill feel quite substantially different as an example. A slayer leech slayer stays close to the enemy and avoids melee attacks from hard hitting ones, never stopping to dish out damage or he does. Squishy after all in comparison to other classes.
With the same base skill as a marauder I instead stand still and just don’t take damage. I don’t need to circle enemies and need to reposition, but I’ll instead need to ‘wittle them down’ for harder enemies. I won’t fall to the ground myself though.

Otherwise the distinct different feeling builds for the same skill in LE also wouldn’t showcase massive differences at times warranting the separation. The number raises for both games if you go more lax… and lowers when you go more strict simply.

[DJSamhein]

@Kulze

Even in this case I could probably still mention 50 distinct builds per ascendancy right away. A big part is simply content quantity there. Obviously LE won’t be able to content with a system that’s been released for over a decade.

Yes, but that is not what is being discussed though. Obviously PoE has more in terms of sheer quantity. The question is more in terms of diversity in regards to the system. If you bring down PoE to the same number of skills you have available for a single class in LE (about 27) and also cut down support gems to a similar number, which of the systems offers more diversity?

I would say it’s LE’s because each main DPS skill has very unique transformations that make that skill feel different not only from other versions of the same skill but also from variations of other skills.

Other than stuff like making them into totems/traps/mines (which are basically just variations of one thing as well), most of PoE’s skill transformations end up boiling into more/less projectiles, more/less speed, more/less damage.

Because LE’s skill nodes are for that specific skill, they can do more special skill modifications that PoE simply can’t allow because of being generic.
You can set Hammer Throw to spiral, orbit, nova or chain. You can make Fireball seek enemies, channel, shotgun, etc.

It doesn’t happen to all skills. Some of them could be improved. But overall you get more unique effects this way than you do with a generic support that is supposed to work with most skills, because you can’t add big transformations to it.

[Kulze]

@DJSamhein

Yes, but that is not what is being discussed though. Obviously PoE has more in terms of sheer quantity. The question is more in terms of diversity in regards to the system. If you bring down PoE to the same number of skills you have available for a single class in LE (about 27) and also cut down support gems to a similar number, which of the systems offers more diversity?

Actually a really hard question… because what gets removed?

Likely still PoE then since the ‘arbitrary duplications’ would be shifted out. But it’s a hard thing to say.

[DJSamhein]

@Kulze

Likely still PoE then since the ‘arbitrary duplications’ would be shifted out. But it’s a hard thing to say.

It will likely also depend on what you want as a player. Some players would like one better than the other.
I personally feel like the skill transformations in LE are more unique because they are tailored specifically to that skill. Thus we have more interesting transformations that make sense in that skill but wouldn’t make sense in another.

Poe, having generic supports that have to apply to a lot of skills at once, can’t be as transformative. You can place them in totems, but the playstyle of using one totem converted skill is very similar to the playstyle of another totem converted skill.

Sure, you have some stuff that can make them feel quite different, but they make skill A feel quite different in the same way they make skill B quite different, because they transform both skills in the same way.

So overall, I would prefer LE’s system simply because many of the transformations are actually quite nice and couldn’t be achieved with a generic support “one size fits all” system.

Either way, and to go back to the original (and since forgotten? ) issue being discussed, LE’s skill trees are innovative because of that reason. Because they allow very unique and specific transformations that even work together most of the time. That is, you can combine 2 or more of these unique transformations in the same skill tree.

[AbombDaChamp]

@Arrix

I think you are not talking about finding glitches, game breaking bugs and abusing those for optimal gameplay. Instead you are talking about building stuff ingame with clever combinations that should not work according to the expectations the game set beforehand. And I agree that this is somewhat true for the ARPG genre.

Exactly but I believe it’s true for any game genre. As a gamer I want to do that in MMO’s as well. It’s my job as the player.

It’s been said the job of a great Dev is to create a game then get out of the way of the player. It’s the players job to show the Devs how to play the game they created. Great Devs understand this and look forward to what the players do with their game.

While bad Devs always try to steer or predict what the player will do, they limit interactions and game design because they don’t know the outcome. They feel we are playing their game wrong if we deviate from their ideas. In reality though they just aren’t good Devs.

@Arrix

LE is still in the foundation lying phase. It’s sad for a full release, but it is what it is.

This is true both that it’s in a foundation phase and it’s sad. LE does in many ways still feel like an early access game.

@Arrix

Please don’t get me wrong, I also want the crazy options.

They have to take a leap at some point. I don’t think Season 2 is the place for it like I said as it’s still creating a solid core game. However Season 3 they gotta start innovating and taking some risk so ARPG players WANT to choose LE. The gaming market is super competitive and there needs to be something special about Class design in LE that makes people say I want to play that.

[Kulze]

@AbombDaChamp

It’s been said the job of a great Dev is to create a game then get out of the way of the player.

Yes, for a single-player game I’m 100% on your side there! Agreed.

For a game with a social environment though it’s a bit different. That has to be taken into consideration.

@AbombDaChamp

LE does in many ways still feel like an early access game.

Because it is… just not in name.

@AbombDaChamp

However Season 3 they gotta start innovating and taking some risk so ARPG players WANT to choose LE.

I would say Season 4.
Season 3 will be needed to fix the still existing issues. Factions, balancing, classes, dungeons… all those. To go forward with a rock-solid foundation. Even at the cost of immediate retention if the monetary situation allows it.

[Llama8]

@Kulze

Yes, for a single-player game I’m 100% on your side there! Agreed.

For a game with a social environment though it’s a bit different. That has to be taken into consideration.

Yeah, there’s nuance to live service games, but I’d also argue that even for SP games it’s not always like that. The dev makes a game acording to what/how they want to. But if there’s a thing that they hadn’t thought of that goes against that vision its entirely up to them whether to embrace it, tweak it or “fix” it. Them taking the third option doesn’t make them “bad devs”.

@Kulze

Season 3 will be needed to fix the still existing issues. Factions, balancing, classes, dungeons… all those.

That’s ongoing work that won’t be fixed in 1 season. Especially balance & classes. It’ll (hopefully) get into a better place with S3 but it’ll never be “fixed”.

[Arrix]

@AbombDaChamp

Exactly but I believe it’s true for any game genre. As a gamer I want to do that in MMO’s as well.

I personally believe it’s more of a gliding scale. For some genres it is more true than for others.
Let’s take MMOs for an example. If it is PvE I’m all with you. But even then the dev can’t get completely out of the way. If something emerges that is so strong that it shapes a major part of the gameplay and is only executable by a certain part of the playerbase (a class specific mechanic for an example) thus invalidating every other option in the game in terms of efficiency by magnitudes the devs need to patch that. There is no need for perfect balance in my opinion, but if a “broken” build is strong it warps the whole game around it, that needs to change.

If the MMO is focused more on PvP than PvE then that changes things again. Balance gets more important. Mechanics that may be “broken” and fun for the ones using them can actively destroy the fun of other players. Back when I watched it this happenend several times in DotA2 (Fountain Hook with Pudge and Chen for an example) and it always got patched quite quickly.

There is however a slope. It’s not exactly easy to identify what “broken” mechanic is just too much for a game. Especially in the time of modern patch distribution.
If you take a look at fighting games it’s not rare to see top players to complain about too frequent patches. They see it as a challenge when one character has some super strong tech that got newly discovered and is beating everything. Those players want to find a way to beat that and see it as part of the game. But when there simply is no other way to beat it than to use it yourself? Then it needs to be patched. On the other hand a lot of players want fast patches and the devs to react “quickly” to new “unintended” tech.

All that to say: I agree with the core of what you are saying, but I believe there is more nuance to it. Some games profit more of a guided approach while some are 100% better with the “sandbox” approach.

@AbombDaChamp

It’s my job as the player.

I don’t see it that way. Well, this get’s a bit into semantics, but players don’t have jobs. It’s the game’s job to provide fun. Though in my opinion allowing emergent gameplay is most certainly one of the best ways to provide the fun.

@AbombDaChamp

It’s been said the job of a great Dev is to create a game then get out of the way of the player. It’s the players job to show the Devs how to play the game they created.

It also depends on the player though. I know a few very casual video game enjoyers. They love walking simulator kind of games and they play most RPGs on story mode. They just want to have some fun while games serve them the vision of the devs. They don’t really care about any kind of emergent gameplay.

Different approaches for different folks.

@AbombDaChamp

They feel we are playing their game wrong if we deviate from their ideas.

I get that. And I tend to agree with it. Though there are nuances again. I like when games have a “strong vision” and the devs do their thing. I think the challenge for devs - especially for video games - lies in identifying where the point of too much rules/limits is for their game and audience. I don’t think most of the time it’s fear motivating the development of unnecessary limits/rules but too much investment in their own vision/ideas.
Things change again when there are brand expectations and huge company egos behind it (like with Smash Brothers - Nintendo and to a great extend the lead dev are/were actively trying to sabotage the competitive scene at almost every opportunity). Or other stuff like enforced DEI.

Below is my personal view point on some game design principles that are fitting to the conversation. This may get a bit long so feel free to skip it. It’s not directly about LE anyway so I put it in spoilers.

Summary

As a creative myself (TTRPG design and writer) your own vision as a dev is very important.
TTRPGs for example are a lot more free (as in "not bound by the logic of computers) in general. Rules can be changed any time to fit the table and there are a lot less “framework” rules (i.e. always roll a d20 or in case of video games click-to-interact). Mechanics/rules incentivise certain behaviours. And deincentivise certain other behaviours. That is not because as a dev I fear that my players do nsfw stuff in a game for kids but because limits and rules make the game in the first place. Your game about lovecraftian horror (you will most likely die or at least lose your sanity halfway through) can’t work if the mechanics of the game easily allows you to use spells that destroy the ancient old ones without breaking a sweat. And in turn your high action post-apocalyptic pulp game can’t work well if every single character loses their mind after seeing a single zombie.

So I really don’t think the discussion is about Devs fearing outcomes they did not predict but more about how much guidance is needed through the use of rules/mechanics to fabricate a gameplay experience according to the devs vision of their game.
A good dev has a clear vision how their gameplay should feel and work. They identify what rules are absolutely required to realize that vision. And they cut out everything that is not needed. In my experience (never said I’m a good designer ) both are quite hard to do even when you don’t need to take the dimension of “code” and “game engines” for video games into consideration.

That is - in my opinion - a very important aspect of making a good game.

A little TTRPG history. There is this gameline called Exalted. It has 3 editions (no I don’t count Essence… for those that know ) . It’s a game about humans awakening as super powerful demi-gods in a world that is on the verge of collapsing. A world that thinks you are responsible for that collapse. So high in action, a power fantasy game where your existence itself is shaping the fate of the world and your actions either doom or save it.
We love it.

The second edition of said game had a very different combat system compared to the first. The regular mechanics were great, we had a lot of fun for the first few months. The first edition had clunky mechanics but worked well. The second was way more innovative and had a lot of cool stuff. But after a few months our group got better and better at combat. And with that I don’t mean the characters but the players. At that point it was very obvious the game had an optimal strategy for combat. And that was a very boring one. Always use a perfect defense till your enemy ran out of “mana” (motes in the system) and then hit him once. That would so much damage that it would outright kill most enemies or if not cripple them enough so they become irrelevant in the combat. Always use a weapon with high speed so you can use more attacks than your opponent thus draining him faster (thus making a regular dagger more powerful than your earth shattering country leveling battle axe of ultimate destruction). Without a major rewrite of the whole system it was not feasible to circumvent that. As a GM it would have forced me to set up very, very weird situations over and over again to make combat fun.
The devs tried to fix it and rewrote a shit ton of abilities and skills (like a 200+ pages changelog in an errata). But even that did not fix all of it.
This progress took a few years (I think the 2 edition ran for like 10 or 14 years).

So the 2nd edition of Exalted is a very good example where a fun system got way worse after players “broke it”. Sure you could say that this wasn’t a good game to begin with, but for players that don’t care about efficiency or power gaming it’s a fantastic system that won’t run into the same issues that would make the game boring for players that try to find broken tactics or combinations. It’s also a great system for adventures that are light on combat and more into the social style of play (intrigue, mystery, politics, etc).

@Kulze

I would say Season 4.
Season 3 will be needed to fix the still existing issues.

This feels right to me. I think season 3 can still win with a good amount of content. I think they really want to use their new system for procedural generation and implementing this in old mechanics (dungeons?) should be a big win if done well.
Balance is an ever ongoing thing and probably will be a focus of every season.

Personally I hope that the weaver tree will be awesome and that they will use what they learned to spruce up the old factions.

[Kulze]

@Llama8

That’s ongoing work that won’t be fixed in 1 season. Especially balance & classes. It’ll (hopefully) get into a better place with S3 but it’ll never be “fixed”.

@Arrix

Balance is an ever ongoing thing and probably will be a focus of every season.

Yeah, that’s obvious.

What I meant with it is rather that Season 3 will need to put a heavy focus still on fixing the ‘state of the game’, the foundation simply.

That’s been quite heavily on the backburner since… well… plainly spoken since I know the game, proper polishing being pushed further back in favor of progress. Which in itself isn’t bad if it happens from time to time, and especially in a beta where steady new implementations and heavy changes makes it hard to cause a ‘stable foundation’ state, but… it’s neither a beta anymore nor with the implementations of 1.2 a game that is ‘lacking’ in end-game. I would argue with the potential of the current changes LE has a better replay-value for the moment… albeit things like dungeon skips and mastery respecs undo a lot of work.

[AbombDaChamp]

@Arrix

Let’s take MMOs for an example. If it is PvE I’m all with you. But even then the dev can’t get completely out of the way. If something emerges that is so strong that it shapes a major part of the gameplay and is only executable by a certain part of the playerbase (a class specific mechanic for an example) thus invalidating every other option in the game in terms of efficiency by magnitudes the devs need to patch that.

Not always. Even if it’s not intended design and can be broken they still need to be careful about patching it because the interaction might be extremely fun for the players. It can cause players to make that build or new team compositions which is a great thing.

As an example in BFA - Battle for Azeroth WoW the corruption Ineffable truth drastically had an interaction with Paladin causing their CDs to be non exsistent creating a new play style. It wasn’t intended and going to be patched everyone was disappointed and they back tracked and didn’t change it. Sometimes Blizz gets it right.

There was also another interaction with Tanks and their SotW essence where we would stack Twilight Devastation and HP and by stacking other Tanks the SotW essence also stacked. So we ran 30 man Raids with only Tanks. Obviously not intended but the most fun I’ve ever had raiding in WoW. They kept it for all of BFA which was great.

@Arrix

If the MMO is focused more on PvP than PvE then that changes things again. Balance gets more important. Mechanics that may be “broken” and fun for the ones using them can actively destroy the fun of other players.

Yea but we have to again be careful. Because that design is often well thought out and makes builds and comp diversity interesting. A good example of this was when in WotLK WoW block value was stacked and Prot used that scaling to 1 shot Dps and clothies. Tanks weren’t intended to do huge damage but if you used the right stats you did and it was one of those times WoW PvP was at it’s best.

Granted they ended up putting a cap on block value offensive side although it wasn’t a cap that nutered the build. It was still very strong if you stacked up to cap and then went into other offense to be an offensive Sword and Board play style stacking arm pen.

Again the Devs need to allow for these interactions to happen and when the players break the game first ask themselves “Does this make the game better and are players having fun with it” “Does it need to be fixed” Great Devs will weight this out heavily and often keep the interaction instead of nuking it from orbit causing players to quit because FUN WAS DETECTED and it got removed.

@Arrix

All that to say: I agree with the core of what you are saying, but I believe there is more nuance to it.

Of course which I highlighted. Key factor is the Devs still got have creative innovative design then get out of the players way and see how they break the game.

@Arrix

It also depends on the player though.

I’m more speaking on the competitive player stand point. The gamers. While a game is designed for a large amount of different player types. The gamers are the ones to test the game, it’s design and break it. Then share how they did it for others to join the fun. What annoys average gamers is when FUN WAS DETECTED by the gamers and by time they get around to trying to do it that it gets nuked from orbit. So they never got a chance to have fun with it.

That is a nuance that many Devs get wrong. That is why there is that meme statement in the gaming community when huge nerfs go out “Fun was detected” Then the interaction was destroyed, the fun removed and now we got to find a new way to break the game and have fun.

This is the cycle I have done in games for over 2 decades. It will be the cycle for many more decades with the gamers and Devs. The gamers just hope the Devs are cool and understand what the gamers job is.

[Folks]

@AbombDaChamp

What annoys average gamers is when FUN WAS DETECTED by the gamers and by time they get around to trying to do it that it gets nuked from orbit. So they never got a chance to have fun with it.

Since you’re talking about all this “gamer’s job is to break the game”, on this forums, I really hope you’re not referencing some of the game breaking fixes EHG did on their game, like fixing the broken Ballista radius.

I’m on the opposite side entirely… Also a gamer for 2+ decades, but to me, if a general player is able to break a game, it means the game is flawed and needs fixing…

Maybe you also think rules are made to be broken, and laws are made to be disrespected? And if someone disrespects the law, then the police is removing the fun for that person by arresting them?

Or maybe you don’t like RPG’s all that much, and are more into the speed-running games category?
And if so, you should checkout the game: Bloodthief. Developed by a single person, it’s still in demo, but it does exactly what you think all games should do, no matter the genre: it incentivizes players to push the limits and break the game. But again, it’s a speed running game, not a concise aRPG experience.

Please, leave this all out of RPGs…