I’m not sure I agree that it’s shallow. Certainly there is lots of room for improvement and more options to be had, but i’m looking at it as still-in-development, and still working on 1.0, so i’m not expecting the full spread/variety that many other ARPGs with longer lifespans have by now.
I’m trying to just look at the core functionality of it right now, does it work (it does), does loot feel good (it does), can you add much more to this without needing Trade (you can). Endgame is in iteration, Cycles will surely offer new additions and experiments, all-in-all i’m just basing my opinion off the current state and potential.
I’m not sure what else you’d play an ARPG for besides min/maxing a character, beating all content, and playing more builds though?
Because I can, it’s called freedom of speech. I gave details on my position on this topic long before you showed up, but I get to the point where repeating the same stuff over and over again gets irritating. Albino knows what my position is, he’s seen the text, we have good debates. It’s just time to put this one aside until they release more information, to avoid them locking down another thread over this topic.
Seems to me like a healthy discussion is perfectly fine, and never hurt anyone. If you feel saturated on the topic you don’t have to engage. It strikes me that excessive bickering may have played a role in threads being closed down, rather than polite, constructive discussion, but that’s just an assumption on my part.
That’s why I don’t really partake in them anymore.
That’s the main reason for devs closing threads (other than them going irredeemably offtopic when Sarno was around & he’d either shut them down or split them, not sure what the new CM’s view on it is).
Neither am I, yet. However, I feel the game has great potential and don’t want to see it wasted because too many people were just easily satisfied or wanted to kiss ass (not accusing you of this, just to be clear). It’s vital that they get the feedback to push it forward.
As for it being shallow, well, going to have to repeat myself a bit, but…
Crafting doesn’t feel good. In my case, it’s not even so much about the actual item power, but how binary it is. You get a good base with an exalted mod on it, you want to be able to fill up the rest of the mod slots with at least t3s, but it’s so easy for the item to brick before then and the item just feels incomplete if it does. You will constantly be mentally nagged by that, even if it’s still an upgrade for you. I’ve outlined in other threads the other issues I have with it, but most of the affixes aren’t terribly interesting either.
The idol changes. I understand why they felt they needed to change them, but I don’t like the trade of giving up idols with interesting stats for larger quantities of boring stats. It’s a step in the wrong direction.
Respec. It’s terrible and undermines the game’s biggest selling point: Build variety. Don’t want to beat that dead horse too much here, either, but it has a lot to do with how little I actually play this right now.
Movement skills feel bad. They are slow, clunky, and usually have too many/high costs.
Monster density is too light.
Loot boils down to items you can equip and affixes (which go on those same items). It needs a lot more variety.
Echo progress being on a per character basis on top of an overly long campaign also discourages that most important of features outlined in point 3.
Most of the shallowness is to do with itemization, though. The potential for build expression is promising, but EHG need to get out of their own way on that.
To me the gist of what you want sounds like more of PoE. Faster, more loot that you can’t necessarily use for yourself (contingent on a Trade system existing), more density ie more zoom zoom and lootsplosions.
While I enjoy that in PoE, LE seems to me to be striving for a decidedly different direction. Slower gameplay with a heavier emphasis on rare/boss abilities and movement, less difficulty via high density and just throwing escalating numbers of rares at you, heavier focus on playing builds with varied toolkits.
I feel like crafting is going to be expanded on, it doesn’t feel finished, so i’m not viewing it as the intended version for release right now. Similarly, I do feel there will be more affixes, bases and generally more loot before 1.0, just maybe not that many more different types of loot.
I’ve respecced my Rogue once (almost completely), I didn’t feel like it was terrible at all, so not sure what your gripe with it is? It cost relatively little gold, passives were reallocated in a few minutes, leveling skills up took a few Echoes at best, done.
Endgame progress being per character is something i’m not decided on yet, i’m going to wait and see what more they have in mind.
Your crafting issues in particular strike me as you missing the greater variety in affixes and basically, the chance to fail which PoE has, but correct me if i’m wrong. It sounds like you want more loot with smaller chances of good overall drops, connected to trade value and more variety in crafting based on greater affix ranges. At that point, i’m not sure how LE would still differ significantly enough from PoE to stand out, tbh.
I actually want something in between. Just like I want a trade that’s somewhere between the extremes of D3 and PoE. LE is a bit on the slow/boring side right now, but PoE is so speed-oriented that you either kill from off screen or die to one-shots. Neither is ideal.
Don’t care about the gold cost. I go through most of my gold pretty easily as it is and don’t mind farming for more if I need it for something. It’s a mostly reasonable balance. My issue is with the way skills are handled. Losing skills points and having to regrind them is not a “respec” by any reasonable sense of the word. It’s a deletion followed by a pointless re-grind. At very high levels it’s fine, but at 60 or less it’s terrible, and that’s where I most want the ability to because that’s where I’m still seeing what everything does and fine tuning the direction of a build.
It’s more that I see it as constraining design options too much. It also is why so many people say it’s too easy to get geared. If the game designed solely for SSF, it’s a great system. I don’t believe it is, though. It gives concern about what they can/will do in the future for itemization.
First of all, I want an economy that is based on more than just equippable gear drops as that’s way too one-dimensional to be interesting or sustainable. Next, it’s not that I want more-but-worse loot in general, it’s that even with the 8.2 changes, general loot drop quality isn’t good enough to regard it as interesting/valuable in most cases. Not trying to shit on the devs here, but when the loot system is this simple, it doesn’t really matter if loot in general is of higher or lower “quality,” regardless of quantity. Then you apply a system that makes even these items often come up as “incomplete” and you have something that is simultaneously boring in ways it shouldn’t be and frustrating in places that it needs to be exciting.
I think this illustrates an overly binary viewpoint about how loot/trade works in ARPGs. The system I want to see isn’t on either extreme. You should see a healthy number of item drops, some good and some not. You should see a variety of useful items that have some utility (and therefore, value). You should have a trade system that helps you progress and push forward, but still leaves plenty to be desired with endgame systems having rewards worth chasing.
I’m not sure how else I can put it, but I don’t appreciate it being mischaracterized as wanting another PoE when I explicitly said in previous posts that was precisely not the case. I don’t believe you are doing it to intentionally antagonize me, but it is an overly simplified interpretation of what I have been saying–to the point of wild inaccuracy.
I’m definitely not trying to antagonize you, it just strikes me that most of what you are leaning towards does seem to trend towards PoE’s design rather strongly. I just get the sense that many people want “PoE, BUT” when it comes to ARPGs, with different players having different notions as to which particular aspect is the most offending one to them.
And from my point of view, LE currently has a foundation that is sufficiently different, yet familiar, that could work to be developed into a different direction. To me, if we were to aspire towards a trade system the way you’d like it, it would have to go hand-in-hand with moving itemization more towards what PoE has, and likely with accompanying shifts in both density and scaling on mobs, because you have to accomodate for the easier access to functional gear in order to maintain a sense of progression and challenge.
I do agree obtaining functional gear is rather easy right now, but that’s fine and good. Whereas the ceiling towards min/maxed gear is very high indeed, and that is also good.
I guess i’m just not sure what you mean by “better” drops and “not just drops you want to equip”, because i’m lacking a frame of reference here. Outside of loot generally having trade value, i’m struggling to define what you could mean, and if you assign trade value, we run into the conundrums described at length. Nothing about the loot design would change drastically, from what I think I glean from your comments, but it would be more interesting because of trade value.
See above though: I can relate to that notion, but for loot to feel more exciting because it has trade value, trade itself needs to be basically required for high end progress, else why would one get excited about a high value drop - you’d get excited because it unlocked new avenues and options for yourself. This is kind of the cat chasing its own tail here, loot can and should feel exciting without the tacked-on function of an economic value, and in my opinion, it currently does in LE, with lots of room to improve and expand on that.
I think you fundamentally have a different view of endgame and ARPG “fun” from others who enjoy the economic aspect. I get excited from the mere fact that I have more valuable items now - as much as some enjoy chasing the highest arena wave, I enjoy accumulating the most amount of wealth (or valuable loot).
It’s much like someone whose league goal in POE could be to acquire a mirror - the wealth accumulation is a goal in itself.
No, I totally get that, it’s how I play PoE and used to play D2 and D3 as well. I liked the feeling of loot being exciting because something valuable could drop at any point.
But the key factor here is that the value is perceived due to its market value, which translates into gearing and build options for oneself. And in my opinion, a similar sense of excitement can be achieved without having to translate loot info trade value and then back into upgrades for oneself.
The problem I have with this way of looking at what others are saying is you can easily fit it to either extreme while missing the point. If someone tells me they like a slower paced, more “strategic” game, I can say they are just looking for “Dungeon Siege, BUT…” or “Torchlight 1, BUT…” or any other comparison. It’s hard to argue that the most successful ARPG on the market isn’t PoE, but it’s not as if all the concepts it employs originated with GGG–they borrowed from many other games.
This is only half true. There are plenty of “Hideout Heroes” in PoE–whose only real goal in the game is to flip currency and craft. They don’t care if they ever kill Shaper, let alone Sirus. It’s a different motivation entirely and only vaguely has roots in relative player power when seen from this perspective.
(Gonna catch some Z’s. Have a goodnight and I’ll catch up with you later.)
Well, that goes without saying. PoE simply represents the most popular and functional version of a Trade economy in an ARPG to date, but there are reasons for that and drawbacks that plague the community, which we’ve already discussed at length, from the difficulty scaling to the necessary hassle of Trade interaction, etc etc etc.
I just don’t see a world where you can have this cake and eat it too, an ARPG environment where you can achieve that type of economy while it not having severe repercussions and limitations for overall design.
People who plays ARPGs solely to play the market are an insanely small minority. Basing one’s entire design philosophy around catering to this subset seems misguided, at best.
You gotta consider the market here. The vast, vast majority just wants to have intuitive fun with different builds, experience endgame and not have to engage with particularly time-wasting and cumbersome activities outside of the core gameplay to progress. I’m not necessarily such a type myself, i enjoy theorycrafting and spreadsheets, and i’ll play markets sometimes too, but i’m not the majority whatsoever, I shouldn’t be catered to.
Wanting loot to have economic value doesnt mean I play ARPG to play the market. I am happy to play the game to acquire the loot. I get that sometimes flipping is better than playing the game to compound wealth but that’s for the devs to create a system to disincentivise flipping
Please dont assume people who like different things from you is this imaginary insanely small minority as you claim. First of all, back it up. Secondly, if items have trade value doesnt resonate with most players as you claim, you might want to explain why POE is the most popular ARPG to date, when people complain about its terrible gameplay and market simulator economy.
I’m not referring to you here, but Albino’s very specific example of “hideout heroes” who play just to flip and craft. They are unquestionably a very small minority of the playerbase, I don’t think there can be much debate about that.
I already told you i’m very much in the same boat vis-a-vis enjoying basic loot because of plain market value being attached. At the same time though we’ve discussed in this very thread at length how it also causes necessary drawbacks, which people find unappealing and unfun. Like i’ve been trying to say and apparently failing to adequately express, there just doesn’t seem to be a healthy balance to the extent that we’d like possible in ARPG design. Trade either becomes overbearing and too powerful, or cumbersome and unenjoyable to interact with.
Yes, absolutely there will always be players who enjoy it, but the majority? I would strongly question that. I’m not basing that on a league or two of PoE, but on endless years of D2, D3, and PoE. Maybe having been in the back-and-forth tug-of-war in PoE leagues between the developers trying to come up with compelling challenges and endgame content while maintaining the Trade system and power has coloured my perception a lot, for sure.
I’m entirely open to suggestions which could solve this eternal issue within the ARPG genre satisfyingly to most, if not all parties involved. So far, I haven’t been able to detect any clear idea here which would adequately address the issues that we all know and are aware of though. Hence my initial postulation: what if LE just bypasses it entirely, and goes down a different direction?
I’ll stress again: if a version of a Trade economy which doesn’t feel unnecessarily clunky and time-wasting, and doesn’t necessitate balance and itemization having to be adjusted to account for its power and preserve the key gameplay loop for as long as possible in any given Cycle (which should always be the goal) can be found - hey i’m all for it, i’d be the first to sign up and vocally praise it whenever I get the chance. I’d play the heck out of it.
You keep saying this as if it’s a given, but it’s just the opposite end of the spectrum with regard to the D3 AH fallacy.
Nobody is saying to base the *whole design philosophy" around this, but it is a reason that some people play. Just because you may dislike it doesn’t mean these people shouldn’t be able to enjoy the game too. This is why I said earlier that it would be absurd if they suggested that you shouldn’t be able to spam farm bosses because it deflates the economy. I’m not convinced that one preference is “legitimate” and the other isn’t.
It’s not about majority/minority. You want a game that appeals to both sides as much as possible.
This is a false dichotomy. As I said earlier, I haven’t seen the middle ground tried yet in this genre.
I’ve offered many suggestions to this effect, but if they bypass trade entirely, this game stops being a competitor to PoE and is instantly relegated to something closer to Grim Dawn, Wolcen, or Torchlight.
That sounds like you haven’t been reading what I have written. I leave a certain amount of it open-ended because the devs have to figure out the finer details, but I have outlined the character of where itemization could/should be, reasonable limitations and purpose for trade, explained how it doesn’t need to be inconvenient or cumbersome to work, and that it would be a tool for progression but not the be-all for the game. Most of all, it doesn’t have to go to either extreme that D3 or PoE did.
I think we’re kind of talking past one another. I’ll try to clarify again.
Trade has to has some form of restriction to it, whether that be in form of restricting what can be traded, or how trade works. This isn’t just a thing since the famous PoE manifestos on the topic, it’s a generally recognized circumstance of ARPG design. There is a good reason why so many smaller ARPGs exist which do not implement a proper trade economy - it’s incredibly difficult to do.
It’s not about me disliking it, I honestly don’t really care. I dabble in the markets myself, I enjoy that. I’m trying to look at it from the neutral/design perspective. If you’re looking at trying to maintain gameplay loop integrity for the longest durations possible, giving this tiny subset of players any undue consideration is just a non-factor.
That is certainly the dream scenario, but you gotta start with the majority, and see if you can fit in something to please that minority afterwards. Hence why I believe LE has been in a non-Trade state for so long, they started in that manner and are now seeing how they can still make that work.
Neither have I, which is why I opened up this topic. We’ve discussed various iterations and i’ve brought up multiple points about the drawbacks of the different forms imaginable. Which brings us to:
Trade is not the deciding factor in an ARPG reaching certain levels of success, imo. It is unquestionably a popular feature that many want (myself included), but I would argue PoE’s success is, to a very large degree, based on their very regular and constant content turnout, which is something no other ARPG before them or after them managed thusfar, and why LE is looking at a similar model with Cycles. If D3 2.0’s itemization model were less hyper-focused on smart loot and had a little more variety in builds and loot, along with seasons adding more content, they’d still be chugging along quite nicely as well. Because the core game works very well, there’s just not enough compelling stuff to do in seasons since 2.0, and Trade isn’t the main factor there imo.
I have, and we’ve discussed the various drawbacks. To reiterate: a buyout AH with restrictions would trivialize and endanger early to mid-progress, basically the lion’s share of gameplay which the vast majority engages with. In this way, LE is quite comparable with PoE in the campaign mode leading into the mapping equivalent. It is to be expected that the vast majority will not reach Monoliths and when they do, many will not progress far. That isn’t to say that the game should be designed to cater to that audience, PoE doesn’t do this either. But it is a very important factor to consider when looking at what is tradeable, how and when. For us as more dedicated/hardcore players, Trade existing up to T20 mods for example would be a non-factor, we’d use it a bit and mostly be focused on hunting Exalteds, boss drops etc in endgame. For the general player, “simply buying” an item that could function as their chase level of item basically cuts off a good portion of their incentive to keep playing at the knees.
As i described earlier, the alternatives are a barter system, which brings with it the same types of issues PoE and D2 had, being cumbersome and a hassle, and a bid-only system which essentially bridges that gap, but runs the rather large risk of being virtually pointless due to its inefficiency and unpredictability.
I’m actually very tickled by this issue and will think further on the problems. Maybe I’ll think of something I think might work. So far I don’t see how the options on the table so far could work satisfactorily without causing the same problems we’ve seen in other games.
Addendum-edit:
Another big factor to consider is that LE is a box price game, and not a free game. The core experience up to Monoliths and early Monolith progression should be as enjoyable as possible without Trade being a necessity or hurdle, imo.
I have already explained why I didn’t find these argument sufficient.
Again, these are just repetitions of the fallacy. I don’t buy it. These arguments boil down to, “This is how it has to be done because it’s the only way we have seen work,” but ignores the sheer number of options that haven’t even been tried and have plausible reasons to believe they could work. It’s not as if any system is perfect, but it can have a few flaws in certain areas and still work perfectly well.
Agree, but the current state of the game only allows for that to be the case on the first (and maybe) second character. Given how build variety/expression is such a huge selling point for the game, it could use some more work in that department. It wouldn’t be hard for me to say that trade would actually improve this part of the game for me. I don’t subscribe to the notion that getting an item through trade undercuts the enjoyment of a section of content–quite the inverse. The only people I have seen where trade harms their long-term enjoyment are people who don’t like the trade process or who have very narrowly defined goals with regard to a character being “done” once they can complete the content. You want to talk majority/minority? I believe those players are the minority. However, they would have the option to just not engage with trade if they feel that way. This is why SSF has found a niche in PoE.
