"
dagul23 wrote:
1. endgame for the no lifers
2. bad drops
3. no AH (yes no. 3)
4. prophecy league instead of perandus league in standard ?
5. labyrinth!! I'm good at it ok,just too...stupid,really! arpg!
6. people think you listen, but for an old time gamer, it's still marketing
My take on this:
1. The delay of mapping until after completing a full story mode not just once, but three times, is bad design. The content core of PoE is mapping, and Atlas shows how it can be an entire game unto itself (something I had trouble explaining to people in the past). Essentially, mapping should start after what we think of as Normal Hillock; I'd probably make Twilight Stand longer, maybe even multiple zones, definitely tutorial more than it does now... but the game doesn't really need towns - once you reach your hideout, it has a map device in it, and off you go.
2. Bad drops aren't the fault of bad droprates. Assuming all gear can be put on a number line from "best for your character" to worst, droprates do not impact upgrade frequency; that isn't opinion, that's mathematically provable. The key to good drops isn't droprates, it's itemization balance, because itemization balance prevents players from putting gear on that strict number line, as they have to consider two different items with very different mods which both appear to be about equal in power for their build. Note that a design focused on build-around-me uniques isn't conducive to this; by definition, build-around-mes are de facto best-in-slot, required for a build to even function, essentially destroy the ability to upgrade gear in slots they occupy, and never raise questions in item valuation for players using the builds designed to use them.
3. I'm thoroughly against automated buyouts, but that isn't the same as being against automated auctions. Although a silent auction house allowing AFK trade would create exploits - exploits I cannot find a solution to prevent - it's important that someone does find it. The "always online" trading culture is toxic, creating tedium in contacting fake-online sellers and putting trade squarely in control of those who can afford to keep a PoE window open all day.
4. Cadiro is a necessary component of a build-around-me, unique-centric itemization design, as he lets players actually have the uniques to build around them. However, he's antithetical to a continuous gear progression model of itemization, as he delivers instant gratification, past which there isn't much progression. What this means is: he's a symptom of a larger problem. The build-around-me, unique-centric itemization design is itself at odds with the continuous gear progression, affix-centric itemization design. Those who argue for the combination don't understand that unique-centric benefits from as many slots occupied by uniques as possible to make gearing about the clever combination of fixed choices more than it is about difficulty of acquisition (similar to how deckbuilding in CCGs benefits from a deep card pool and relatively easy card acquisition), while affix-centric design benefits from as many slots occupied by affixed items as possible to offer as many simultaneous threads of gear progression as possible. Given the grindy game PoE wants to be, it should have put the fun mods for wacky builds into the affix system, not relied on unique items at all, and therefore have no need for Cadiro.
5. I touched earlier on the ridiculousness of repeated story content, and Labirynth is no exception. Also, having some traps deal percentage-based damage (which essentially ignores your investment in +HP and +%HP) is probably okay, but having every trap (and zero non-Lab content) deal damage that way makes it an outrageously polarizing experience. GGG would be wise to limit the Lab's distinction from other content mostly to its limited-attempts feature, while trying to make its traps a little less special and a little more like general content. The contrast is unnecessarily sharp.
6. Listening to player suggestions isn't usually wise for a developer; players aren't game designers. But players
are players, so feedback is usually accurate in a way which suggestions are not. It's not surprising to me that GGG doesn't just do what the community says, but when it leaves something untouched for a long period, which significant portions of the community are incensed about, it does disappoint me a little.
