Rethinking the 'developers as gods' design philosophy

Currently, the games developers are the gods that determine what it takes to reach the end of this game. They have chosen grinding as the key characteristic required of players.
I find ‘grinding’ as the defining goal of a game absurd, since it is so arbitrary, and so easy to give players the option to do it to a level that they choose. For example:

Crafting
Easy difficulty - Crafting anything you want is achievable, you just need to collect the shards and find the items (I’d play this for sure, and for longer time than I ever would for a work-like grinder, such as POE and Last Epoch in their current forms)

Moderate difficulty - crafting items to Tier 3 is achievable, then RNG, gambling, grind, work for tier 5 mods

Hard difficulty - crafting in it’s current form.

Gating content
Easy difficulty - All content is accessible all the time, you can fight a level 100 mono at player level 1 if you want. Players decide when their toon/build/stats are ready to take on tougher content. If they get stomped, players decide how long to grind for better items. (Interestingly, this would almost certainly be the choice of difficulty for all those players currently arguing for the grind, as this would afford them much greater challenges. Beat a level 100 mono at player level 50? Yeah, it took me ages to get the gear on other characters, and 100 tries, but I did it. Hooray. Give me street cred!.)

Moderate difficulty - Players are forced to complete the campaign to do Mono, then, say, 4 mono runs to beat a big boss. Say 12 stages at 3 big bosses per stage, this is 50 runs to unlock the chance to beat the endgame boss.

Hard difficulty - The current form of however many hundreds of mono runs it takes to get the chance to grind out the RNG to get the glyph you want.

Multi-player difficulty - Areas and Bosses that would stomp any individual player, but can be defeated with the right mix of builds, strategies, tactics.

Effects on balance
The real benefits of the ‘give players more autonomy’ design approach would be for balancing items, keeping a wider player base happy, balancing bosses, etc.

Consider how hard the developers have to work to keep ‘balance’ in this game before it even launches, with far fewer items, skills and characters than are planned, and far fewer players than they would hope to keep happy and returning. They currently have to choose one level of damage for each boss, one level of stats for each item, one base mana regen, etc. For each choice they make, we, the players, have our opinions, and never will they all meet.

Then think about how freeing it would be for players to simply choose their own combinations of challenges.
For people like me who like listening to podcasts, listening to music, stopping the game to live life, etc. it’s simple. Choose easy. You will get a pause button for when the doorbell rings, you will get the chance to fight a boss without days of grinding. You cannot brag to your friends, but that’s fine by me.
For badasses who like climbing leaderboards, it’s simple too - Choose hard. You cannot pause the game, your items will fracture 99 times out of 100, so the one that sticks will feel really good, bosses will kill you unless you spend days min maxing your gear, and even then it will test those reflexes I remember having long ago.

For developers, it would mean that balance changes do not need to accommodate all players at all times. Did we clearly get volatile zombie numbers wrong, so that every build is now spamming them and getting thousands of ward? Sure, but no big deal. Players who are enjoying it can stay in easy. In hardcore we will change the numbers of that skill so that we see if it remains viable at 50% of it’s current value. Did changing the base mana regen create nice challenges for streamers, but alienate a lot of casual players? Sure, but no big deal, we can make easy level include a slightly higher base mana regen.

Do you see how many types of player feedback/preferences, even the ones that are polar opposites, can now be assimilated into the game?

1 Like

What was so wrong with marching up and down the square?!?!

I find such an approach fragments the identity of the game.

2 Likes

Yes, that is exactly what I’m suggesting. We fragment the identity of the game into easy, moderate and hard - and reap the benefits that this would entail.
While I agree that this would change the feel of the game, perhaps in a negative way, there is an easy thought experiment to test that: Do you feel strongly about the options of Hardcore and Masochist that currently exist?

1 Like

I think hardcore is quite a different thing. But yes, I am not a fan of masochist mode. And I understand your suggestion is basically taking things down the same alley.

While I understand your proposal and the backing arguments I seriously do not like the suggestion for LE… I understand your motivation but I honestly do not agree with it in any way or form and I have a feeling that it just might be one of those “agree to disagree” type discussions.

I am all for a standard game mode with the possibility of a simple monster/damage difficulty scaling as a choice when you start a character - for single player mode ONLY with the added “single life” hardcore option… This simple feature should allow for all types of players casual or hardcore grinders…

For online & multiplayer I would prefer that everyone has the exact same content and difficulty with the option of a hardcore (single life). Fairness overwrites everything here for me. If that means the grinders are able to build better characters etc due to the time they are able to put into the game then so be it…

I find that the suggestions separating modes down to crafting difficulty and changing the way that characters experience each bit of game content is so fraught with issues that it may as well be three different games.

So, for me… firm no on this particular idea…

5 Likes

fragment the identity of the game into easy, moderate and hard - and reap the benefits that this would entail.

I can support this. You could have different server instances for easy/medium/hard, and you can have badges/achievements for completing the game on each difficulty setting.

For online & multiplayer I would prefer that everyone has the exact same content and difficulty

And they would be, within that instance.

There are two problems:

The first is that there are two types of players: completionists and challenge players. Not all challenge players are completionists, so for them it’s not that big an issue if they can’t/don’t complete all content, whereas for completionists getting to experience the content is more important than beating it at a certain difficulty. OP’s suggestion would allow for both.

The second problem is that making the game too difficult may make it such that a decent player can never learn (or get better at) what they need to learn in order to beat that content. OP’s suggestion would allow for easier versions of the same content where a player could learn/practice (maybe where the enemies are slower, so you have more time to learn their telegraphs, etc). (I will admit, it’s very frustrating to me, for example, with one of LE’s competitors, to have to go watch a youtube video to try and learn the telegraphs for a fight, and then go into the fight and get my ass handed to me immediately because I’ve had no time to read any telegraphs.)

I think if we’re paying for the game then we should get to enjoy it the way we want to enjoy it, and believing you can only have one or the other is a false dichotomy. We can have both, as long as the owners are willing to pay devs to do the work. I think that being able to advertise that they meet both player’s desires would financially benefit them, because right now all of their competitors do not. (I think - would love some suggestions if I’m wrong.)

TL;DR - having to only choose one or the other is a false dichotomy. It IS possible to have both, without one ruining the other.

2 Likes

Anything is obviously possible with enough time and money but by the same token you can never please everyone and quite honestly, nor should you attempt to - that is folly.

As the game stands, I believe that it has the offline version - allowing anyone to play at their own speed doing whatever they want playing the campaign and various other game modes… Yes it could use a singular difficulty setting to make it easier for some to enjoy - no problem with that feature as its in virtually every offline arpg I can think of. If EHG wishes to add expansions / features to the offline version that allow people more leeway, then thats up to them, but I would hope that the kinds of things suggested above come well after the game has launched.

Online is an entirely separate version of the game and cannot be subject to the individual preferences of every possible player and every possible way that they may prefer the content to be played and progressed. Trying to do that would, imho, ruin any hope that EHG would have to making online multiplayer work. It has to be a level playing field with all players having the same content and rulesets.

I stand by my original response to the OP…

1 Like

I can understand that people want different difficulty modes. That’s fine for me. I’d also wish there would be several different difficulties.

But I don’t like having an easy mode regarding other mechanics like crafting or gating content.

What is with the hardcore players that don’t want to do the campaign before monolith? Having alternate leveling methods should not be tied to difficulty.

Fracture mechanic feels bad for me whether I’m playing easy mode or not. This should change in general (imho) and not only for people that choose to play easy mode.

I think I get where the motivation comes from. But saying “Leave all the mechanics I don’t like for others and give me my personal game mode with features I like” is not a good approach.

Honestly this sounds like a casual couch gamer wanting to change the entire genre of online multiplayer ARPGs to fit himself better…

These are all horrible suggestions. Giving everyone instant access to everything makes everything meaningless.

2 Likes

While it may sound absurd to say, I would wager that your assumption of your own interest in this form of playing is wrong.

Everyone wants the high end gear and items. It is the whole point in playing the game though. Once those things are achieved, replayability drops off a staggering cliff.

As an example, I loaded up Terraria again recently. I spent about 6 hours slogging through the game and hadn’t made hard mode yet. (I like to take my time sometimes). I then made a new character just to join a public server to get the end game loot for free. I took that character to a new world then and just face rolled everything. Not only did I lose interest in the character after 10 minutes of that, I lost interest in the entire game. There was no longer a goal to achieve. Goals are goals because they require some struggle to get there. If there is no difficulty, it is just another mundane task.

2 Likes

Yes it could use a singular difficulty setting to make it easier for some to enjoy - no problem with that feature as its in virtually every offline arpg I can think of

  1. We must be playing different games then, because I’ve never seen this. Please share some examples, I might like to play those games.

  2. I was not aware of LE having an offline mode, I’ll have to look into that. If that’s true, then yes, I agree it’s something they could do for the offline modes without impacting the online server. I like that, that would give both types of players what they want without affecting each other.

Honestly this sounds like a casual couch gamer wanting to change the entire genre of online multiplayer ARPGs to fit himself better…

And honestly, you sound like a insecure tryhard Chad who needs to portray the attitude that your opinion is the only opinion that matters in order for you to feel special. Newsflash: my opinion is objectively as equal and valid as yours is, and always will be, by the simple fact that I am an equal human being to you. We don’t need to agree, and the game devs don’t need to listen to you any more than they need to listen to me. Oh, but we’re only supposed to be attacking ideas here, not players. Maybe you shouldn’t have.

While it may sound absurd to say, I would wager that your assumption of your own interest in this form of playing is wrong.

You don’t have the authority to tell anyone what they want is wrong.

Once those things are achieved, replayability drops off a staggering cliff.

It’s none of your business how many times anyone plays it. If I pay my money for the game and want to complete it once and never look at it again I have every right to do that. I probably won’t, but whether I do or not has no bearing on whether or not you need to like what other people do with their time.

I am not telling anyone anything that they ought do. I said I would wager that their initial assumption is wrong based on near countless examples. It’s also a logical conclusion if you know anything of logic.

First, I think you are using “Chad” incorrectly here.
Second, you are wrong. Opinions can be wrong if they are based on incorrect or insufficient data. Using the words “objectively” and “valid” further point to the need for verifiable data in coming to your conclusion, even though you call it an opinion.

For example. You could claim that McDonalds Chicken Nuggets are the best thing they offer, but if that is the only thing you have tried from McDonalds, you have insufficient data. If you later try the Big Mac and like it more than the nuggets, you could then come to the conclusion that you were wrong in your initial assessment (opinion).

It is important to the devs in order to keep the game alive. It is also important for the devs if they plan to have income from cosmetics. People need to have a desire to stick around in the game in order to want to purchase cosmetics.

The implied tone of that last bit you wrote sounds like you want the game to fail or are just a troll (considering you joined just yesterday). You want what you want with no regard for others. Maybe try a bit of courtesy. It makes people much more receptive to your ideas.

1 Like

@fla_panther - these are some of the best forums on the interweb, let’s keep it that way. We all make an effort to discern the discussion at hand, and not get distracted by the way someone expresses it.

@Darkdeal - Makes a good point. For most people, this prediction would hold true:

Perhaps even myself - But I’ve spent enough time playing Path of Building or Last Epoch build planner, where you literally get every item and skill level with a click (and enjoying it!) That i’m confident in my level of self-awareness on this issue.
Importantly, I’m not married to these ideas, I was just throwing them out there.
The point here, really, is what we lose if these options exist, vs what we all gain if they exist. We do not need to

We could just have 5 buttons to select from at character creation instead of 3. If you ignore 4 of them, just like you currently ignore the masochist and hardcore buttons, you get the exact same gaming experience you currently get.

2 Likes

@GRIMLOCK9999 - I believe in The Platinum Rule: Treat others the way they want to be treated; they may not want to be treated the way you want to be treated. If Arundel wants to speak like that about other people, he should expect it in return. TBH, since I did notice the board had a message about discussing topics not people, I first looked for a button to flag their comment. Not finding one, I said what I said. I find it interesting that you @'d me and not him.

It’s also a logical conclusion if you know anything of logic.

No offense, but unless you’ve gone to school for formal logic, odds are I know more about logic than you. I know what you meant, and you were wrong to say it not only because of the logical error but also because it’s crossing a personal boundary you have no right crossing -even if you were right.

It is important to the devs in order to keep the game alive.

No, it’s important for the devs to make money. Again, don’t go down the road of the false dichotomy. Do not presume that building offline modes with different levels of difficulty necessarily translates to fewer people playing the game. There are multiple reasons that assumption could be false.

As professor Campbell once said in an interview:

BILL MOYERS: But if one accepted that isn’t the ultimate conclusion, to say, well, ‘I won’t try to reform any laws or fight any battles.’

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: I didn’t say that.

BILL MOYERS: Isn’t that the logical conclusion one could draw, though, the philosophy of nihilism?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: Well, that’s not the necessary thing to draw. You could say I will participate in this row, and I will join the army, and I will go to war.

BILL MOYERS: I’ll do the best I can on earth.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: I will participate in the game. It’s a wonderful, wonderful opera, except that it hurts. And that wonderful Irish saying, you know, “Is this a private fight, or can anybody get into it?” This is the way life is, and the hero is the one who can participate in it decently, in the way of nature, not in the way of personal rancor, revenge or anything of the kind.

For all you know, there could be just as many people - or more - who go on to complete the game on the easier mode who then decide they liked the game enough and who say, “You know, I was able to beat it at that level, I think I’ll give it a try at this level now.”

How would you define “beating the game”? aRPGs are pretty open ended. The “real” end is getting perfect gear. Some players will roll a different character after achieving that, or close enough to it. If all characters were extremely easy to get to that point, the drive to play goes away.

Just to note, I actually do have quite a lot of logic, philosophy, reason, and ethics credits from college. Having a degree in it would do very little to advance ones career though, so I chose to not do that.

These are not mutually exclusive and absolutely go hand in hand. A games longevity is directly related to the amount of revenue from the game. Moreso if the game intends to continue updates for the game.

Lets not go into what “rights” you think I should or should not have.

I love doing these things too, because I love planning. The journey to that point is much different than just having the end goal though. The satisfaction of achieving the goal is correlated to the amount of effort it took to get there. Doing the planning is quite fun. Once you have that final goal though, it gets boring playing with that character really fast. There is nothing left to strive for. It’s fun to go beat up the bosses, but once you do it once with the maxed character, there isn’t much reason to do it again.

This doesn’t take into consideration Arena, but that mode has different goals.

1 Like

Then you should know the futility and inappropriateness of trying to debate which beliefs are “right” or “wrong” - except when dealing with maladaptive behaviors, which we are not dealing with here.

LE is currently offline (with chat, leaderboards & the requirement of logging in), the devs have always said that after they launch multiplayer they will release a “proper” offline mode, presumably without the login requirement.

There’s no need for anyone to get personal.

https://imgur.com/9l5489n

Unbecoming. Sir.

Phone + fat fingers.