Harbinger Content Integration

Not related to league, but its still important, so please check it out GGG: https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2025874

Real monopolization!

"The two map rerolling currency items (Orb of Horizons and Harbinger's Orbs) are not something we want to keep in the core game. While they provided players a lot of flexibility in mapping, we felt it took a lot away from unlocking the Atlas, and made jumping up map tiers too easy. They also do not fit well with content coming in 3.1.0. These will not be added to the core game."

Does this mean that WHEN they add the "Harbinger" Zana map mod, that Harbinger orbs will no longer be in the game even AFTER they implement the Harbinger map mod?

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

"

ReginaldClovis wrote:

Perhaps no one will read this, as I waited longer than an hour or two to respond to the post

I read it, all of it. And last I checked, I'm certainly not "no one". ;-)

"

ReginaldClovis wrote:

but to give us a REAL tool for experiencing the endgame and then spuriously take it away? Pretty awful, honestly.

First, I'm not the 1% according to them, nor am I casual according to the "filthy casuals". I'm probably somewhere in the 2-5% of anyone with a PoE account (at least according to the league stats that get carted out on the forums for every challenge league). Yet I have no problems reaching end-game and tier 15 maps. I never complete my Atlas in challenge leagues, but I can complete end-game challenges. So I really don't get how you claim, by contrast, that we never had a "real" tool for experiencing end-game.

We have the Atlas. That's a tool for map progression. We also have vendor recipes to upgrade tiers of maps, so that's already a tool to help reach end-game. But this biggest tool of all is trading, barring SSF of course. Red maps are rather cheap compared to the currency you'll be earning at end-game. Just playing a few yellow maps will earn you more than enough currency to buy a red map. So why would Harbinger currency be a "real" tool for endgame when you ignore everything else we already have. And I didn't even get as far to mention vaaling, chancing, guilds, global 820, and more. Plenty of "real" tools out there.

"

ReginaldClovis wrote:

Leading players on a forced march through content they don't want to play doesn't seem like the "experiencing the Atlas" that I believe was intended. On the other hand, the average player wouldn't be able to just skip most of the Atlas, either, to progress. I feel like this response by GGG is symptomatic of having one's eye on the "top 1%" of the player base, around whom I would say balancing is almost ALWAYS a bad idea.

It really depends on how you define "leading" players and "average" players. If you use the raw numbers of estimated players, then yes, but if we're talking about active played who are logging into PoE every week or every day, then no. I can easily skip a good chunk of the Atlas in challenge leagues, and as a 2-5%er I do a forced march through progression but still thoroughly enjoy the content. There are no progression maps I hate, unlike the speed clearers/meta folk, but there are certainly unique maps and end-game encounters I hate (eg: no point in EVER running Hall of Grandmasters, which is probably the most skipped content in the game, well beyond even uber Atziri and the Shaper).

"

ReginaldClovis wrote:

On the other hand, as a primarily SSF player

This is your Achilles heel. This is the real reason why you have the experience you do, why you posted what you did, and where your viewpoint originates. And I completely understand that. But keep in mind PoE is balanced and geared towards non-SSF leagues due to trading and grouping. SSF is an afterthought that's embraced by the < 1% of players who seek out that insanely time consuming mode of gameplay, relatively speaking compared to everything else that's PoE. But please don't expect GGG and the community to bend over backwards to balance this game for the SSF folk.

So, I really appreciate the effort in going through my whole tl:dr post, but I (surprise!) disagree significantly on a few points. Firstly, I say "REAL" (caps included) tool, because of the effectiveness and consistency of value of horizons and harbingers. They are consistently useful in their intended purpose for experiencing higher tier maps and navigating to desired ones. The Atlas is more the system itself, vice a tool. And even so, completing more maps can work both for and against you, opening up a massive pool of undesirables for RNG to bend you over with when you're trying to progress. 3:1 vendor recipe as a significant or consistently effective tool for reaching endgame? Really? While it certainly can be useful, I think it would be difficult for you to maintain that it could consistently or effectively be used to maintain high levels of map pools, which is experiencing the endgame. And vaaling and chancing . . . less so. Whereas guilds would be dependent on the individuals in them, size, or say, if you're even in one? As for Global 820 . . . addressed later below.

I'm glad you like all progression maps . . . that's very positive. But you even concede to the "forced march" part. Which means that for those who don't share your sentiments, my point stands. And mind you, I'm not saying "do away with progression!" But having the ability to adjust your map drops here and there to your liking ESPECIALLY at endgame, seems more than reasonable.

What I feel your post really was winding up to was that last section:

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

"

ReginaldClovis wrote:

On the other hand, as a primarily SSF player

This is your Achilles heel. This is the real reason why you have the experience you do, why you posted what you did, and where your viewpoint originates. And I completely understand that. But keep in mind PoE is balanced and geared towards non-SSF leagues due to trading and grouping. SSF is an afterthought that's embraced by the < 1% of players who seek out that insanely time consuming mode of gameplay, relatively speaking compared to everything else that's PoE. But please don't expect GGG and the community to bend over backwards to balance this game for the SSF folk.

I don't think that playing and adapting around the actual drops I get is an "Achilles Heel." I quite enjoy it. But by no means was I addressing the issue of harbinger/horizon orbs merely from a SSF perspective. And, indeed, not only were several points mutual to SSF and Non-SSF play, but I even noted so. And further, a number of sentiments I've noticed, SSF or not, seem to largely echo my own-- which was the whole reason I made the post.



Also, the availability of trading doesn't mean that players will want to brace against it to make up for shitty RNG:



I noticed there wasn't much of your response that actually addressed my reasoning behind keeping the orbs themselves and the place they could occupy in the game, either . . . but the fact is, embracing a tool (which could easily be tuned in its drop rate) that makes Atlas progression more fun, less grindy and more realistic is not a bad thing. And whether SSF or not, I think we can all recognize that and so should GGG! Nor do I think it would then be expecting "GGG and the community to bend over backwards to balance this game for the SSF folk." ;)

Please reconsider adding the Orbs of Binding into the base game, even if only at the mapping level. Being able to easily four link helmets/boots/gloves without needing to fiddle with jeweller's/fusings made the gearing up process a lot more pleasant to stomach. Even if the rare mods it rolled were garbage, you could always scour and be left with a four link white item for future crafting.

The two map rerolling currency items (Orb of Horizons and Harbinger's Orbs) are ..... best cure on curent atlas cancer when everybody reforge it to drop mainly 1-2 type of maps anyway (Vault for example ;) )
Beachhead remove .... this made me sad even more

And the rest of the changes like shard, unwanted harbingers fights (because you cannot start the encounter by yourself), create harbinger-Zana mod, etc. .... I dont care about

result:
viable and good things removed -> disapointment with league ending

"

Dreamwarden wrote:

the Shards that SHOULD be integrated into the core game don't exist: whetstone shards, scrap shards, bauble shards, prism shards, and chisel shards. When you sell a quality item of the appropriate type, it gives you shards equal to the items Quality %.

The current system of gathering items that add up to 20% (or 40% for some things for some reason) is very inconvenient. Doing this will simplify the process and improve player QoL.

Very cool idea!

This post will be a wall of text, so wrapping in spoiler tags...

"

ReginaldClovis wrote:

The Atlas is more the system itself, vice a tool.

Spoiler

And even so, completing more maps can work both for and against you, opening up a massive pool of undesirables for RNG to bend you over with when you're trying to progress.

If a player is focused on rapid progression, they'll strategically fill out their map. But the beauty of the Atlas is that if you don't care which maps you get at each tier, you can just complete whatever comes your way and continue to progress nonetheless.

"

ReginaldClovis wrote:

3:1 vendor recipe as a significant or consistently effective tool for reaching endgame? Really?

Spoiler

While it certainly can be useful, I think it would be difficult for you to maintain that it could consistently or effectively be used to maintain high levels of map pools, which is experiencing the endgame. And vaaling and chancing . . . less so.

If you're struggling keeping up a map pool of on-tier or one tier higher maps between T10 and T15, then you're probably not doing what I'm doing.

"

ReginaldClovis wrote:

I'm glad you like all progression maps . . . that's very positive. But you even concede to the "forced march" part.

By forced march, I'm referring to our method of progression. In other words, we can't just decide to farm Act areas and get to end-game anytime soon. We're "forced" to go through the map tiers to progress. I don't mind that, but I do agree GGG could do better in progression diversity. No argument there.

My real point is that progression works fine, and the 40/40s here, along with those in the ladder of each league are living proof. It's not meant to be quick and easy, nor is it meant to be completed by the majority of players out there. Even an SSF player talked about their path to 40/40 recently on the forums. Progression works, but it takes a commitment of time and/or planning.

"

ReginaldClovis wrote:

But by no means was I addressing the issue of harbinger/horizon orbs merely from a SSF perspective.

That's akin to living and struggling in a third world country, but claiming to truly understand first world life. I know, I know, analogies suck, so I'll address it directly: your viewpoint is already shaped by being an SSF player. It doesn't matter if you understand that trading is there and how helpful it can be, because the fact is you still play SSF. That's always going to skew your experiences in PoE, and as such you can't pretend it's not a big factor here.

"

ReginaldClovis wrote:

Also, the availability of trading doesn't mean that players will want to brace against it to make up for shitty RNG:

It actually does.

"

ReginaldClovis wrote:

I noticed there wasn't much of your response that actually addressed my reasoning behind keeping the orbs themselves and the place they could occupy in the game, either . . . but the fact is, embracing a tool (which could easily be tuned in its drop rate) that makes Atlas progression more fun, less grindy and more realistic is not a bad thing.

Not a "bad thing"? You did read Carl's (Qarl's) post, correct? It completely alters the current balance of progression. While all of us might enjoy faster progression, it will ultimately skew the game and trivialize the accomplishment of everyone else's 40/40 records, level 100 characters, and their ranking on the ladders. Many people don't care about that, but those who push further at end-game do care.

"

ReginaldClovis wrote:

And whether SSF or not, I think we can all recognize that and so should GGG!

Spoiler

Nor do I think it would then be expecting "GGG and the community to bend over backwards to balance this game for the SSF folk." ;)

We can recognize your viewpoint, but that doesn't make it absolute truth, especially for a topic that's very subjective. We can appreciate your viewpoint, but that too doesn't make it the correct path to take. GGG already made their decision, and I think they made the correct one. I of course have my disagreements with GGG too, but in this instance I fully support it.
In your view, progression at end-game should be easier, and that would no doubt eventually lead to adding more things to keep the end-game diminishing returns going. And that's a no-win for everyone, including yourself, even if you don't agree.

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

If a player is focused on rapid progression, they'll strategically fill out their map. But the beauty of the Atlas is that if you don't care which maps you get at each tier, you can just complete whatever comes your way and continue to progress nonetheless.

Let me correct your statement: "If you don't care about the maps you get OR your PROGRESSION, you can just complete whatever comes your way and struggle in place as your EXP gains taper off."

Right now, Atlas progression WITHOUT orbs is a mess. I kept track of it, and... I'm currently sitting at 122/126, (Haven't bothered w/VT, Mao Kun, Putrid Cloister, and, ofc, Perandus Manor) and of those 122 maps, the VAST majority I wound up having to buy. I had a LOT of map drops during that time, and in most cases, it'd never be what I needed.

If I wanted to get the growth "organically," I'd have to sit there spamming an adjacent map to the one I want because, remember this, incomplete maps on the Atlas can only drop in adjacent maps.

In fact, past the white maps, the times when I WAS able to get a new tier's map without buying it, it was... Because I was able to vendor 3 of the tier right below it. (and after that, I managed to get a COUPLE of red maps done because I Vaal'd one and got +1 tier, and was lucky enough it didn't give RIP mods)

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

If you're struggling keeping up a map pool of on-tier or one tier higher maps between T10 and T15, then you're probably not doing what I'm doing.

Translation: what you're doing is sitting on the same tier, your level growth halting while you re-grind the same maps over and over and over. Your emotional investment may numb you to the pain of grind, but DO recognize that puts you in the minority, not majority.

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

Progression works, but it takes a commitment of time and/or planning.

Not really planning so much as brute force/trading. I very well might've spent more money on maps than equipment this league. (granted, my only major purchase so far has been a my 6L staff, so my equipment bill thus far is only a handful of exalts)

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

In the end, Harbinger boosted that progression to the point of making it more obtainable for the 99%. But do you want to know a secret? I saved almost all of my Harbinger orbs.

For the most part, harbinger orbs weren't good for atlas completion; their value was equal-to-or-greater than any plain map, as their MAIN use was producing Beachheads... Though they had a secondary effect to help in acquiring some T16 Guardian maps. Once the Atlas was filled out (to at least DROP T16s, even if the drop bonus wasn't unlocked) then the Beachhead maps had an added benefit of helping stockpile them.

Now, HORIZON orbs, on the other hand... Helped remove that pain of redundant drops. RNG has a nasty habit of giving reptition, and this is exasperated with the way the Atlas restricts drops. A relatively inexpensive orb (like 3:1c before this thread's announcement sent the markets into a tizzy) allowed players to smooth out their drops; hence, for instance, getting 10 Core drops in a row didn't doom the player to yet more grinding of Shrine, et al, in hopes of getting a different T15.

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

That's akin to living and struggling in a third world country, but claiming to truly understand first world life. I know, I know, analogies suck, so I'll address it directly: your viewpoint is already shaped by being an SSF player. It doesn't matter if you understand that trading is there and how helpful it can be, because the fact is you still play SSF. That's always going to skew your experiences in PoE, and as such you can't pretend it's not a big factor here.

Well, since you're bringing out "SSF" as a slur, somehow, let me be here to remind you that they're not alone, as I'm someone who undoubtedly trades far more than you. (I've been slacking on organizing my shop tabs, and I STILL have an order of magnitude more items listed on Harbinger)

So yes, you can show that you don't have much else to argue on beyond a jab at their playing preferences to try to discredit them, but that doesn't get you very far.

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

Not a "bad thing"? You did read Carl's (Qarl's) post, correct? It completely alters the current balance of progression. While all of us might enjoy faster progression, it will ultimately skew the game and trivialize the accomplishment of everyone else's 40/40 records, level 100 characters, and their ranking on the ladders. Many people don't care about that, but those who push further at end-game do care.

Don't speak for others, like those of us that actually HAVE gone 40/40. Kinda rich given that you dismiss their ideas just because they play SSF, while you yourself express to know the feelings of players that've gone far further than yourself.

Qarl said what he did because it goes against their OWN expectations... And most of the developers don't play the endgame of their own game.

Do remember that ladder rankings for level 100s are permanently fixed by the time they hit 100. So no, making it faster for EVERYONE would not "cheapen" anyone's rank. The ranks would remain exactly the same.

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

So I've countered everything you said, but you still think your viewpoint is the truth,

This is pretty damn self-righteous of you to say.

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

And that's a no-win for everyone, including yourself, even if you don't agree.

You utterly fail to make any sort of argument why such would be a bad case, actually. As it is, PoE suffers from a nearly-unique problem that it experiences precipitous dropoff in its playerbase within a matter of weeks after each new league comes out. It kinda leads the industry in the rate of how quickly people give up on staying with the game.

If it was because progression was too easy, we'd also see HUGE numbers of people completing to 40/40 & level 100, but no, THOSE remain on a steady growth rate through the league. (e.g, while >50% of the playerbase drops off after 1 month, we DON'T see >50% of the league's 40/40s or level 100s reached by then)

Again, some players just have a larger investment in others to keep them going. Others who are not so invested directly into the game have less tying them down, and are more likely to just quit.

This is the problem that keeps Path of Exile's successfulness from reaching the next level.

Keep the map orbs for God’s sake and quit trying to throttle us into your perception of how we should be playing.

A good game is not meant to be fun, it's meant to be frustrating

welcome to "Path of Masochism"