Difficulty options?
" No no, the other players don't need what they want but just give me the easy win button. There should never be any consequences for failure, in fact I should just win every time. Seriously, some people just seem to want a movie that they click through and pretend they accomplished something at the end. Difficulty modes are a terrible idea, it's an online game with multiplayer and trade as key elements. Segregating the player base is stupid, and you will never balance things for everyone. Instead, they could just continue to make the game they intended. That game already has a solid audience that enjoys it and some that really like it. Build from there, and those that want an easier game have other options. |
|
" You mean PoE 1 ? |
|
" I have a feeling splitting feedback about campaign/endgame was a surprise for them and they don't know what to do about it. It was not something they expected. Hence the silence. |
|
|
That way people could play what they want, and elitists could still complain that other people are having fun.
Sounds perfect, which is why GGG will never do it. |
|
" Punishment != Challenge. In fact, punishment makes people AVOID the challenge. If you didn't have the punishment, you could, in fact, make the game more challenging. The most challenging games don't have any punishments for dying. Players don't mind failing a hundred times in a row because they can get right back in and try again. The design of this game encourages over-leveling and over-gearing so you minimize the risk of death rather than over-juicing the map to face the maximum challenge. |
|
" To have widespread appeal, you need to make changes that appeal to your average player. Xp loss on death isn't going to bring in players. It infact, will probably have them quitting. So if the goal of the game is to bring in more players, then it should probably be removed and/or reworked right? And, maybe you can explain how it makes the game easier? I'd argue all it does is add a bit of gametime to peoples playthroughs. That's not difficulty. That's time. Do you think games are more difficult if they take a lot of time? Because usually, games are difficult because they have challenging mechanics in them. Like tough boss fights. Or puzzles. Not time. |
|
|
Yes, only having "ruthless" at the moment is a bit... Killing the fun for me, I guess I will return when "Normal" has been added.
|
|
|
I’m not a fan of having multiple different leagues
The idea of having several different leagues isn’t good, in my opinion, as it spreads the player base too thin, and this directly impacts the in-game market. For example, if there were "Easy," "Normal," and "Punishing" modes, we’d likely see a distribution like 80% in Easy, 15% in Normal, and 5% in Punishing. The result? The market becomes increasingly empty and inactive. A video game is meant to be fun, yes—but if you have two broken hands and can’t learn boss patterns or dodge mechanics, the game isn’t too hard—you’re just not good enough. I’ve always disliked the trend of simplifying everything and calling it "fun." Having to repeat bosses multiple times is normal. I still remember the final boss of Kingdom Hearts 1. I had to fight him at least 20 times before I could win. When I finally did, it felt amazing. I never once wished for those mechanics to be simplified. I don’t want to play Minecraft—I want to fear monsters, defeat them, and improve my gear. |
|
" Games have had difficulty settings since at least 30 years ago (DOOM was one of my first games and it had 5 levels of difficulty). It's not a novel concept. Different people want different challenge and different punishment. Some players enjoy Ruthless PoE1, others do not. I don't see any reason not to include difficulty switch for PoE2, especially if GGG want a wider appeal. Let sweaty tryhards have their hc level of punishment and the rest of the playerbase can have fun without extra frustration. |
|
" Consider what the game would look like if it was a single player game without the need for a market, or the game being balanced around the market. There's no such thing as 'spread too thin' when there's no economy involved. Players would just play. Why does this game need to revolve around a market? It obviously very negatively impacts quite a lot of this game. Like, we can't have difficulty options, because we're forced to interact with the market. But there's ultimately zero need for that market, and it only exists because the loot is very very bad in this game. They did that intentionally. |
|
