Difficulty options?

"

Darosius#3984 wrote:

I’ve always disliked the trend of simplifying everything and calling it "fun." Having to repeat bosses multiple times is normal.

"

leoviale#3633 wrote:

In my opinion, PoE2 should move away from punishing mechanics entirely or at least give players the option to avoid them. If the goal is to retain players and attract new ones, providing choices is essential.

Challenging gameplay is fine—I enjoy difficulty—but frustrating and seemingly pointless punishments alienate most players. Mechanics that feel unfair or impossible to counter aren't fun and don’t help the game grow. For example, XP loss is an outdated concept. It doesn’t add value to the experience; it only frustrates players, especially when they face poorly explained challenges they’re unprepared for.

These kinds of mechanics—like losing maps, wasting trial coins, or suffering XP loss—don’t just punish players; they undermine their investment and enjoyment. Over time, this can lead to rage quits, as it did for me in PoE1. I got tired of punishing, unexplained systems that felt like a waste of time and effort. That’s not how you keep players engaged or happy.

It’s a misconception that PoE1 succeeded because of these mechanics. The game thrived because of its depth, variety, and frequent updates—not because of frustration.

A better approach for PoE2 would be to offer freedom of choice. Leagues already provide a framework for different playstyles, so why not expand on that? Here’s what I propose:

Hardcore League: Similar to PoE1—if you die, you lose everything.
Punishing League: Includes XP loss, map loss, trial coin loss, and other hardcore mechanics for players who enjoy this level of challenge.
Casual League: No XP or map loss, no trial coin penalties, and more freedom to experiment with builds (e.g., free respec points).
By offering these options, PoE2 could appeal to a broader audience while still catering to its core players. Let each player decide how they want to experience the game, and you’ll likely see better player retention and satisfaction.

"

Vinsdvalh#0247 wrote:

You don't spread playerbase thin with multiple game modes. You just retain more players who wouldn't be here if there was only the original game mode.
I'm sure a few would be disappointed to not have casuals in the market game though.

"

Valsacar#0268 wrote:

"

vio#1992 wrote:

"games are all about NOT easily giving players what they want".

let that sink for a while...

try to get into the role of someone who has to create a game full of challenges

try again

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.

"

Akedomo#3573 wrote:

"

Vinsdvalh#0247 wrote:

You don't spread playerbase thin with multiple game modes. You just retain more players who wouldn't be here if there was only the original game mode.
I'm sure a few would be disappointed to not have casuals in the market game though.

And it boils down to the market.

So, keeping the market in the game, means that GGG can't implement changes that makes more players, more happier in the game.

So, the solution is to get rid of the market, so that people can freely enjoy the game as they see fit?

"

Bacon_Overlord#1834 wrote:

I think you're trying to say GGG should remember this is a game... and games should be fun.

Good luck with that.