Diablo 4 announces that there will be a campaign skip ... its time for POE to do the same

"

Thesuffering wrote:

"

Khallis wrote:

this so much

Fanboyism is a cancer in the gaming community. this need to act like the devs are your best friend because you enjoy their game is the absolute worst and needs to die. this is why you get trash games that don't work or in POE ... bad leagues.

because the devs know that you will have the fanboys shouting down any sort of criticism and telling people "oh if you don't like it just leave"

I think of it from a different perspective. Devs want to make the game they want to make. We either like it or we dont. Problem is that we dont have a roadmap for the changes, and i dont think they do either.

I think we're talking about two different things though. Because I actually agree completely with what you said, I WANT the devs to make the game THEY want to play. Hell, it's what made early Blizzard so successful.

But what I replied to was a player telling another player that if they don't like the *changes* a game has made, they should leave, which I think is silly since it's a live service game with constant changes and we should definitely call out ones that we don't like.

Extremists of both sides are obnoxious and outright wrong, but both have some kindling of truth, albeit distorted.

"PoE is dying". That's very far from the truth, however, day 1 retention for Crucible IS one of the worst in recent history. Ritual started with at least 25% less players, and as of today it has more players playing than Crucible (as far as we can tell).

"If you don't like it, just leave". So why is there a "Feedback" forum subsection to begin with if they will just do as they like? They are pretty much allergic to QoL, but then why add some of those QoL if it'll make the game more streamlined and "excel"ish? Ironically, it's also the hole model of PoE, "if you don't like it, just leave and comeback next league, we'll have new stuff".

---

Pretty much everything they said they wouldn't do, they did because something forced them to do it one way or another. I would bet someday they will introduce another leveling method, but not in the next few years as the new campaign will cover that.

"

Pizzarugi wrote:

"

innervation wrote:

Diablo IV doing something should be irrelevant to whether or not PoE should do something.

Just because a disappointingly-casual game is the one releasing QoL that helps to modernize ARPGs, it shouldn't be ignored. I hate ActiBlizz for a myriad of reasons, including how they turned the Diablo series into a hollow shell of what it used to be after the 2nd game, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate some useful features that would only serve to make PoE better.

Skipping the boring campaign you've run for the nth time historically is one such feature. So is doing away with portal and wisdom scrolls. An auction house, before ActiBlizz got greedy with that RMAH, was also a fantastic idea, but I expect nobody is still ready to have that discussion. And finally, smart loot in a game that showers you in garbage would only make the game better, at least for SSF so players don't have to willingly shoot themselves in the foot for wanting to disassociate with the necessity of trade.

Blizzard 'modernized' the arpg with Diablo III and ended up with a boring, oversimplified product.

Blizzard modernized the table-top combat card game and ended up with a overly monetized and watered down product that wasn't complex enough to be fun long-term.

Blizzard 'modernized' the MOBA genre and gave up on it when they learned they couldn't squeeze enough dollery doos out of it to keep the suits happy.

Blizzard has, at all times since Diablo 2, made every decision through the prism of 'how can we make this more accessible to someone who has never played our games before so that we can get a new payer? Not player. Payer. Blizzard doesn't make games anymore. They make experiences they think you will pay for.

To that end, I stand by the statement that if Blizzard wants it, I don't - by default. And if we think a feature belongs in PoE and by pure chance Blizzard happened to have also developed it, then lets sort out why its good or bad on its own merits.

-

Players who want full skips for the campaign don't understand what 'gameplay' is. They don't understand the 'r' in arpg. GGG should never offer a quick ticket to endgame. But they can help everyone win by doing 2 simple things: let waypoints be unlocked for future characters within a parent league, and make the league mechanic relevant to do during the campaign.

Perandus and Expedition were two of the leagues where I made the most new characters, and its not an accident that doing those mechanics during the campaign rewarded a decent number of relevant rewards. I could do an expedition and get some black scythe currency and a Tujen reroll that I could use on my lvl 90+ character's inventory. Having relevant and valuable loot drop during the campaign lets you focus on the actual arpg elements of gameplay instead of feeling like you're in a holding pattern waiting to feel like you aren't 'really playing' the game yet.

"

innervation wrote:

[

Blizzard 'modernized' the arpg with Diablo III and ended up with a boring, oversimplified product

To that end, I stand by the statement that if Blizzard wants it, I don't - by default. And if we think a feature belongs in PoE and by pure chance Blizzard happened to have also developed it, then lets sort out why its good or bad

Really? The entire arpg genre, generally speaking, is often considered "Diablo clones". Many PoE features are ripped right from the Blizzard franchise. This is some wild revisionist history simply becaue you don't like where the company has gone in your personal opinion.

The main issue Ive always had with the D3 hot takes, is that they are totally biased and subjective. In fact, just statistically, you are in the minority opinion. Not that you are right or wrong per se, or "xyz" is good or bad, it's just that you cannot make broad conclusions like that, given the results we have seen. It's just not accurrate.

D3 was one of the most successful games of all time. You might not like it, but you should at least be able to concede many millions of others did. Same goes for Blizzard in general. To look at the Blizzard library of games, and come to the conclusion they don't know what they are doing, or don't have talented people, just comes across as being bitter for the luls.

If anything your complaints are totally misdirected. Based on what you wrote, they should be directed at the player or consumer that are making their products successful. You dont have an issue with the game devs or the publisher, you have an issue with the players/customers supporting things you dont personally like.

Sure Bobby K might be an absolute clown, but what does that actually mean? Plenty of CEO's and mega corps suck, (GGG and Tencent included) so dont get on that high horse, or there might not be any products left you could buy without being a hypocrite.

So you dont want any Blizzard ideas or influence in your games? Too bad. Already there. Most developers would kill to be in their shoes. Let's not be so jaded that you lose logical thinking comprehension. Hell Crucible is GGG's most successful legaue, shattering their concurrency recored, simply because of fucking spillover players from a weekend of D4 beta interest.

Imagine having 20+% growth beyond your highest ever totals for a legaue launch, because your competitor had a small, Act 1 only, level 25 max, 72-hour beta. That should tell you anything you need to know, and why the numbers for D4 (and PoE crossover) will be nothing short of historically massive.

What?

I'm talking about Diablo III era - present ActiBlizz because that's the studio that did the campaign skips, not Blizzard North of D II. There is nothing misdirected here. I'm pushing back on the specific premise I quoted - the idea that Blizzard adds 'great QoL' to their games and that GGG should follow suit. I disagree. The casualization of their games is being conflated with QoL, and down that path lies an incredibly boring non-game of which there are already dozens.

Demanding QOL is codeword for demanding easy way to jumpstart a lvl 80-90 in red maps.
Demanding QOL is codeword for demanding automatic AI-configurable bot trading.
Demanding QOL is codeword for dropping everything identified so that my extreme strict lootfilter can auto pick all the divines and auto drop into currency tab.
Demanding QOL is codeword for demanding a bench that auto-rolls the mod you want without clicking orbs on the item.


It is funny that I know some people who I highly suspect of RMTing asking this exact same QOL to accelerate their ROI. But yeah you can't outright say they want to generate ingame currency faster and easier, so they use codeword 'QOL'.

"

Reinhart wrote:

Demanding QOL is codeword for demanding easy way to jumpstart a lvl 80-90 in red maps.
Demanding QOL is codeword for demanding automatic AI-configurable bot trading.
Demanding QOL is codeword for dropping everything identified so that my extreme strict lootfilter can auto pick all the divines and auto drop into currency tab.
Demanding QOL is codeword for demanding a bench that auto-rolls the mod you want without clicking orbs on the item.


It is funny that I know some people who I highly suspect of RMTing asking this exact same QOL to accelerate their ROI. But yeah you can't outright say they want to generate ingame currency faster and easier, so they use codeword 'QOL'.

All extreme exagerations. Literally no one is saying those things.

It's about having an alternative way to level up once you've played through the campaign.

Period.

"

Reinhart wrote:

Demanding QOL is codeword for demanding easy way to jumpstart a lvl 80-90 in red maps.
Demanding QOL is codeword for demanding automatic AI-configurable bot trading.
Demanding QOL is codeword for dropping everything identified so that my extreme strict lootfilter can auto pick all the divines and auto drop into currency tab.
Demanding QOL is codeword for demanding a bench that auto-rolls the mod you want without clicking orbs on the item.


It is funny that I know some people who I highly suspect of RMTing asking this exact same QOL to accelerate their ROI. But yeah you can't outright say they want to generate ingame currency faster and easier, so they use codeword 'QOL'.

The game is already full of plenty trade bots for the rmt squad even without "QOL" changes.
But I get the same feeling that most players ask for those "QOL" changes just to print more dollars/h

"

Reinhart wrote:

Demanding QOL is codeword for demanding easy way to jumpstart a lvl 80-90 in red maps.
Demanding QOL is codeword for demanding automatic AI-configurable bot trading.
Demanding QOL is codeword for dropping everything identified so that my extreme strict lootfilter can auto pick all the divines and auto drop into currency tab.
Demanding QOL is codeword for demanding a bench that auto-rolls the mod you want without clicking orbs on the item.


It is funny that I know some people who I highly suspect of RMTing asking this exact same QOL to accelerate their ROI. But yeah you can't outright say they want to generate ingame currency faster and easier, so they use codeword 'QOL'.

RMTers already have everything figured out and doing quite well. I suspect these RMTers are the most vocal against any QoL changes because it will hit them hardest.

"

hasatt0 wrote:

RMTers already have everything figured out and doing quite well. I suspect these RMTers are the most vocal against any QoL changes because it will hit them hardest.

Can't really remember seeing anyone being "against" QoL changes, even when it comes to trading. The current trading system needs changes, tweaks and upgrades. What I have seen a lot of, though, is people being against an automated system. And rightfully so.

If you use friction and inconvenience as arguments for an automated system, then fine; I can understand it. But people should never use bots and RMT as arguments for an automated system, because those things will be 10 times worse.