Discussion of basic design of POE1/2.(GPT version for easy read + point form) Direction should GO?

!!!This is the simplified GPT version. GGG should read the original version for a clear view (listed as REF)!!!


My friend said ggg too busy to watch a few thousand words, so here is the point form:

1: Inconsistent design throughout the whole early game to end game.

2: GGG needs a clear direction (goal) for the future plans for POE2. Obviously, ggg was too ruch on EA.

3: A clear path (priority) should be established for updating the EA. Eg:
Bug fix > mechanism design > Bud fix > (act4-6 or not, cause these is the bed rock for the whole game, same as the 12 other ascendancy) > balancing > player experience improvement.









POE2 Game Design Discussion

Before I start, a few things that should be addressed

this discussion had a few things updated for the last discussion.

1:ggg did say “soullike” this word before EA( I don’t know), this making the direction of POE2 more unclear because in act1-3, it is ITS_like, but the endgame is poelike. The difference between these will be discussed in the article.

2: in the article, many end-game mechanisms are addressed as a problem, but most of these endgame problems are caused by the short development time in the past 6 months. I am sure most of the atlas and end-game mechanisms need to be redesigned. Also, the diversity of build will be increase for more content updated in the future. But like the main core of this article, the
DIRECTION OF POE2 needed TO BE CLEAR in ggg.
ITS_like? POElike? Both? (Do remember, you can't sell the cow and drink the milk) for old player? new player? 3-4months update season?.
ggg, isn’t Ubisoft having 2000 developers. Like I said, priority issue.

3: The MF problem seems less serious than I thought. More data came out from different people tested in these two weeks, showing that player-IR does reach the plateau around 100-200 ir. It shows that ggg learned from the past. I am sorry for missing this. But it is still a problem of the multiplying effect of group and map ir for the solo player. I understand that ggg wants us to play as a group. But not everyone has friends. i think ggg should optimize the grouping system to help normal players find teams more easily.







Introduction

First, a few points needed to be addressed. POE2 isn't Soullike, as shown in 0.1d,e update, where GGG clearly hopes that POE2 goes in a POElike direction.

Currently, different builds and characters are extremely imbalanced, some content is too difficult or too easy, and the growth rate in skills and MF are unfairly high. However, this discussion isn't about balance, as GGG will balance it eventually.

The focus here is separating balancing from base design in the bottom logic of POE2 game design. The fact that less than half a year was spent on the endgame explains many current design defects.

Key Terms

POElike: Diablo-like/ POE1-like games

Intensive-like (its_like): Soullike and roguelike games

MF: Magic Find

IR: Item Rarity

IQ: Item Quantity

Core Design Philosophy: POElike vs Intensive-like

Initial Understanding and Reality

When EA was just released, I misunderstood that POE2 was Soullike (intensive-like). While POElike and intensive-like have fundamental contradictions, it's actually more of a priority issue.

In my point of view, the core values in POE1 are diversity, complexity, and freedom. In contrast, intensive-like games focus on self-challenging. There's no action in many roguelike games, but POElike shares similarities with roguelikes through their randomization systems.

Before EA, many people described POE2 as Soullike. After these three weeks, it's very clear: POE2 is not. You can still run, farm, and one-shot your way through the game, particularly after the 0.1d,e update. GGG didn't make the game more challenging but more POElike.

Multiplayer vs Singleplayer

The comparison matters because intensive-like is typically a single-player game, while POE is multiplayer with extensive player trading and collaboration. This creates more unfairness and balancing difficulties in boss fights for POE2 more than POE1. While bossing isn't the main focus in traditional POE, in POE2, bossing becomes essential, and action is important.

Many players note that Act 1-3 bosses are difficult, but endgame becomes too easy. This exemplifies the challenge in balancing intensive-like and POElike elements. Remember, this is only 0.1 EA, with many future seasons coming every 3-4 months. GGG must repeatedly balance this while maintaining complexity and diversity.

If GGG focuses too heavily on boss balancing, they risk overlooking build and item balance. Some builds will become much stronger than others. More bugs will appear because GGG's attention is divided. We must remember that GGG lacks the resources of larger companies like Ubisoft (and even those companies struggle with this).

Item Design and Action Mechanics

In intensive-like games, items are fixed or have minimal variation. In POElike games, items are hugely diverse, providing player freedom - item diversity is core to the POElike experience.

While "action" is essential in POE2, many operation spaces are limited. For example, in Acts 1-3, everyone is forced into a Soullike playstyle because monster speed remains constant while players are much slower than in endgame.

The blocking system remains unchanged from POE1, offering no new tactical options. Many players note that rolling is the only new "action" mechanic beyond POE1. This feels insufficient compared to Soullike games while not adding enough diversity for POElike expectations.

Magic Find (MF) System Discussion

The Fundamental Contradiction

MF perfectly illustrates the intrinsic contradiction in POE2's design. MF exists to obtain better items more quickly. In intensive-like games, item randomness is very low, and most items are easily obtainable. This contrasts sharply with high-end items in POE2/POE1, like Headhunter or Mageblood.
In the present formula, the currency drop is calculated with the player-ir, which also had multiple effects and increased the importance of player-ir. Making the unbalanced economic system even more.
Items are merely a component in intensive-like games. However, in POElike games, item diversity and randomization are core features. This is why MF is necessary for POElike games.

good item drop rate

Some said ggg wants players to “feel” better in the good item-dropped. And yes, we may have better items from the normal random drop. But, what is the sacafated? The poor crafting experience. Defected currency system. Unfair MF system.

And if GGG wants players to “feel” better in the good item-dropped. Why are there so many (95%) useless unique items or in a very low-level-based unqi? Would anyone feel happy if there were one more unique drop on the ground? This is the contradiction of good item drop and “feel” better in the good item-dropped

how to improve, 90% lest unique drop and enhance all the useless unique toy.

Drop rate philosophy

How to make players feel better on item drop?

the difficulty of content vs difficulty of item drop.

same in the contradictions in its-like vs poelike

think about the first time kill the Act1 boss, if it is hard, happy, but a very bad drop. Do players feel good? Yes, we do. Because that is the first time. In POElike, these bosses will kill 1000 times when we are farming. So, the randomization of item drops makes it a bad experience for those who have a bad drop. Or you farm 1000 times, making it feel like nothing, just like a statistics game as poe1. That also why you would see a fixed drop in its_like.

Or just want player farm

now the game is like act1-3 = its_like

end game = POElike

Maybe this is the intention of the first design of POE2? I do not know. But if you say its_like in end game, why are temporalis and HH present? All these types of items, builds, and designs are obviously POElike, not its-like.

Fairness and Market Impact

True fairness and perceived fairness differ, similar to how random mode in MP3 players isn't truly random. In POE, randomness and fairness are deeply connected. The MF system uses true randomness, which is why some players can find Divine Orbs or Mirrors each season.

In POE 3.25, "Settlers of Kalguur" played a crucial role in market stability by establishing a bottom line for randomness in the market. This reduced overall system randomness, improving player experience even if GGG might not have intended this. While GGG shouldn't necessarily implement 3.25 mechanics in POE2, some form of market floor would benefit POE2's economy.

The current MF problem extends beyond just the mechanic itself. Many aspects of POE2 show too rapid growth rates in their growth curves. The steep rating creates a massive divide between early and late game experiences.

Economy Discussion

Crafting System Fundamentals

POE1 didn't initially have a crafting bench. Crafting was even more difficult than current POE2. GGG likely maintained the bench due to workload constraints while testing base crafting mechanics.

GGG expects players to craft with sufficient currency, but this fundamentally misunderstands why most players avoid crafting. The key factors affecting crafting and trading decisions are:

Cost-effectiveness
Economic conditions
Market prices

Market Mechanics

Market price represents the current trading value of items or services, determined by supply and demand dynamics. When supply equals demand, we find the market price.

Information gaps between players create economic disparities:

Expert crafters can produce items more efficiently
They profit from the knowledge gap
Other players can buy items cheaper than crafting costs
This avoids wasteful trial and error

For example, most people don't farm their own food because farming requires specialized knowledge. Farmers produce efficiently, and middlemen distribute to consumers, eliminating the need for individual farming expertise.

Similarly, GGG employees don't pay for goods with oil or flour, nor do they make their own clothes. This demonstrates why players shouldn't need to craft all their own items.

Player Behavior and Market Reality

Most players prefer to:

Farm maps
Fight bosses
complete their own build

Only a small percentage enjoy spending hundreds of hours crafting in hideouts. Even after 10 years of play, many veterans lack comprehensive crafting knowledge. GGG's expectation that everyone should craft represents a fundamental design mistake.

Market Balance and Price Anchors

The current market lacks clear balance points, leading GGG to search for price anchors. Market fluctuations are expected during this period, which explains the emphasis on crafting.
Veteran POE players will recall how the exchange rate between Exalted Orbs and Divine Orbs reversed three years ago due to crafting bench price changes. This demonstrates how price anchors can shift dramatically. According to economic principles, markets eventually find appropriate equilibrium points. Therefore, current prices aren't crucial as they'll adjust with future updates.

However, extreme market fluctuations harm player experience. Issues include:

Early game volatility
Previous farming method disruptions
Current MF system problems
Significant market impacts from each GGG update (mechanism changed)

The crafting bench helps stabilize these market conditions.

Economic Consequences

The rapid inflation rate and high economic inequality in the current system, primarily driven by unfair Magic Find rates, has created a severe economic divide with far-reaching consequences. The impact manifests in two major ways that threaten the game's ecosystem.

First, we're seeing signs of a potential mass exodus among the majority of players, specifically about 95% of the playerbase. These players, typically those with limited daily playtime, find themselves caught in an impossible economic situation. They simply cannot farm currency fast enough to keep pace with the game's rampant inflation. When players can only dedicate a few hours per day to the game, they discover that endgame items become increasingly unattainable. The situation worsens as the top 5% of players maintain their iron grip on the high-end market, effectively creating an insurmountable economic barrier for the average player.

Suggested Improvements and Personal Ideas

Design Philosophy

This discussion aims not just to critique GGG but to understand their design choices, limitations, and problems for improvement. While this is Early Access, the design flaws indicate insufficient pre-release planning. Time constraints don't excuse fundamental mistakes that need addressing through underlying logic changes.

Specific Issues and Solutions

1:
Growth Curves

Too rapid value scaling
Excessive power from stacking single values (skills, MF)
Map and atlas passive systems lack complete logic
(Clear design issues rather than balance problems)

2:
Build Balance Issues

Large gaps between build power levels
Poor early game experience (Acts 1-6)
Overpowered options for item
Problematic growth curves (e.g., Vine Arrow)

3:
Character Development Limitations

20% increased passive points but halved ability values
Reduced build freedom
Insufficient defence options

(Clear design issues rather than balance problems)


Recommendations and Solutions

The primary focus should be addressing these issues through careful redesign rather than simple value adjustments.

However, here are some of the simple changes.

For movement speed, I suggest implementing a 15% base increase for all players, complemented by tiered shoe bonuses of 5%, 10%, and 15%. This approach would create more space for action-oriented gameplay while preventing excessive speed that could trivialize content. The key is providing players with meaningful choices rather than forcing specific playstyles.

Regarding build balance, the solution isn't just nerfing overpowered options like Titan. Instead, we should raise the baseline power of weaker builds while maintaining current endgame ceilings. Take Vine Arrow's issues as an example – the problem stems from an unreasonable growth curve rather than raw value. By raising the baseline and adjusting growth rates, we can make Acts 1-6 more enjoyable without compromising endgame challenge. Consider how "Let Me Solo Her" chooses their equipment restrictions rather than having them forced – good game design should provide choices rather than restrictions.

For character development, I suggest adding 10 additional passive points to offset the current limitations. While some players speculate about a future second Ascendancy affecting this balance, the current freedom reduction needs addressing now.

Adding 20 resistance points to all resistances would increase build flexibility without overpowering characters(ggg has done this, showing they know this problem as well).

The Magic Find system needs significant revision. Rather than the current exponential scaling, growth rates should decrease after IR 150-200, reaching a natural plateau around IR 250-300. Additionally, each piece of MF equipment should impose a 10-20% movement speed penalty, creating meaningful tradeoffs. However, the simplest solution might be halving or removing the system entirely.

The rune system also needs comprehensive redesign. Drawing inspiration from Diablo 2's combinations would add depth while maintaining accessibility. Adding crafting options for runes would integrate them better with existing systems and provide more player agency in their use.

These changes aim to preserve POE2's complexity and depth while making it more accessible and enjoyable for all player skill levels. The goal isn't to simplify the game but to ensure its systems work together coherently while providing meaningful choices for players.

Atlas System Problems

Cost Barriers:
High endgame boss attempt costs
Newcomers afraid to try difficult content
Expensive talent point acquisition
Limited learning opportunities

Content Access Issues:
Breach, ritual, delirium, and expedition costs too high
One-time attempt nature discourages learning
Risk of resource waste
Market price inflation for attempt items

Atlas System Recommendations

The primary focus should be addressing these issues through careful redesign rather than simple value adjustments.

However, here are some of the simple changes.

The Atlas system needs fundamental restructuring to become more accessible while maintaining its challenge and rewards. I suggest changing Ascendancy 2 and 3 to match Sublimation 1's approach - removing costs and allowing unlimited attempts as green mission items. This change would encourage players to learn and practice boss mechanics without fear of resource loss.

For league mechanics like breach, ritual, delirium, and expedition, we should implement a two-tier approach. The first two passive points should be obtainable through first-time completion, while the third and fourth talents become repeatable green quest items. For example, players could give their cracked stones to Dognani for a "Weakening the Crack Stone" attempt that can be repeated. Importantly, boss drops would remain unchanged, but Dognani would return the stone after completion.

This design achieves multiple goals: it gives everyone a fair chance at attempting pinnacle content, ensures learning opportunities without excessive cost, and maintains market balance since each player only gets one completion reward. The time investment from top players remains valuable as drops stay the same, but the barrier to entry becomes more reasonable. Players can farm those mechanisms more easily with 4 more passives, so the new player baseline will be increased.

Economic System Problems

Market Instability:
MF issues causing market distortions
Boss passive costs creating barriers
Inflation and wealth inequality

Development Timeline Issues:
Rushed endgame development (less than six months)
Incomplete system testing
Poor economic planning

Economic Solutions

The economic system requires careful recalibration similar to POE1's approach with quarterly updates. While the 3.25 "Settlers" content helped players earn initial currency, the current Early Access state needs different solutions.
The damage from recent economic disruptions like the Lost City farm incident can't be undone, but we can implement preventative measures for the future.

Market stability should be prioritized through multiple approaches. First, introducing price anchors similar to the crafting bench changes that previously affected ex/div ratios. Second, implementing better farming location design to prevent single-spot farming that favors bots. Third, creating natural market stabilizers that don't rely on specific content like 3.25's "Settlers."

These changes need to happen at a fundamental level. Simply adjusting values won't address the underlying issues. The system needs to account for information gaps between veteran and new players while providing fair progression opportunities for all players regardless of playtime availability.

Additional Economic Background and Market Discussion


The economic system in POE2 faces several fundamental challenges that stem from GGG's apparent misunderstanding of market dynamics and crafting positioning. The core issue lies in how players interact with the game's economy, particularly regarding crafting and trading mechanics.


In the current system, there exists a significant information gap between veteran and new players. This gap creates an economic environment where a small group of knowledgeable players can craft more efficiently and profit from the difference in expertise. The recent Lost City farming incident exemplifies this dynamic, where those with specific knowledge could significantly impact the ex-div balance, leading to market destabilization.


The crafting system particularly highlights GGG's misalignment with player behavior. While GGG expects players to engage in crafting with their accumulated currency, this expectation overlooks fundamental market principles. Most players prefer to purchase items rather than craft them, similar to how people buy clothes instead of making them. This behavior is rational when considering cost-effectiveness, market prices, and the extensive knowledge required for efficient crafting - knowledge that even players with ten years of experience may not fully possess.


The market price dynamics follow basic supply and demand principles, where prices adjust based on availability and desire for items. This was evident in the case of Archmage equipment, where high demand coupled with limited supply led to increased prices. The economic imbalance is further exacerbated by rapid inflation rates and high economic inequality, primarily driven by unfair Magic Find (MF) rates.


This economic situation creates two significant consequences:
1. The majority of players (approximately 90%) cannot keep pace with inflation, especially those with limited daily playtime, as the top market becomes controlled by a small percentage of players.
2. The top 10% of players face a prisoner's dilemma situation with MF, where they must continue running MF builds to avoid falling behind, regardless of their preferred playstyle.


Historical examples from POE1, such as the reversal of ex and div prices three years ago due to crafting bench changes, demonstrate how market anchor points can shift. While such fluctuations are normal, especially in an Early Access period, excessive market instability severely impacts player experience.


These economic issues extend beyond simple market mechanics and affect the game's core stability. The current crafting bench serves as a market stabilizer, but the underlying economic design problems, particularly regarding MF and market accessibility, remain unaddressed. This situation mirrors past POE1 experiences, where systems like "Settlers of Kalguur" in patch 3.25 helped stabilize the market by establishing a bottom line for randomness in the system.


The economic design challenges reflect broader game design issues, where core mechanics like MF systems show too rapid growth rates and create multiplier effects on currency drops, leading to rates double or triple those seen in POE1. These issues suggest fundamental design oversights that need addressing beyond simple value adjustments.


With the uncompleted design of the end game for all the mechanisms. I can tell the ascendancy tries to provide a stable income for the new player. However, like the ascendancy problem I addressed. All these mechanisms are too hard and too expensive for majority of players

Final Thoughts

The combination of rushed development, fundamental design misunderstandings, and economic imbalances threatens POE2's long-term success. While Early Access status explains some issues, the underlying design problems require comprehensive solutions beyond simple value adjustments.

Success requires:

Understanding market dynamics
Balancing accessibility with complexity
Maintaining POElike elements while managing power scaling
Creating sustainable economic systems
Preserving player choice and build diversity

In my personal thought, the goal of POE2 EA should be to create a game that, like POE1, can provide enjoyment and depth for the next decade while maintaining fair, accessible, and diverse gameplay experiences. GGG wants to put a new element - action in POElike, which is a great attempt. But this is not easy. I really hope ggg will succeed. Btw, I think act1-3 and the boss fight is really fun as well. personally hope that poe2 can be more its-like but not POElike. We already have poe1, right?

After all, Thank you GGG.

REF:
Discussion of basic design of POE1/2. roguelike, soullike, poelike. How ggg improve poe2?
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/3669461

As a scientific researcher, there are reasons for an article to have more than 1000 words.

That is good because our universe is very complex so I can do science, and that is fun.

So, as POE, it is also complex (not the real world). So many things are too complicated to make a 100-word abstract. I can understand that GGG are too busy for 1000 comments, I would not say my comment is more important than the others. I just hope GGG can treat player comments as I treat the science article.

Like I said, there are reasons for an article to have more than 1000 words.

Supplementary information

Some comments in Reddit have noted that my wording came across as patronizing. I apologize - my intention was simply to share my perspective regarding the report.

However, I realize I should clarify that Magic Find isn't just about player Item Rarity - it also involves map Item Rarity, Item Quantity, and tablet modifiers. One particularly interesting aspect is how currency drops work differently in POE2 compared to POE1, where they weren't calculated with player or map Item Rarity. This change could significantly impact MF stacking strategies in POE2.

Also, I might have focused too heavily on Magic Find. When there are other crucial aspects like item drops, the economy, build diversity, and overall player experience that deserve attention. Thank you for this perspective.
While I did point out areas where GGG's direction wasn't clear, I should have better emphasized how they've demonstrated their awareness of various issues and are actively working to address them. Any current challenges seem to stem more from fundamental design decisions and the rushed nature of the Early Access launch rather than lack of awareness.

The streamlined power system for casting(prove a simplified and easily changeable calculation formula to adjust in the future)

Trading system improvement from 3.25

The well-designed boss encounters in Acts 1-3

The revised MF system (though I believe it could use further refinement)

Also, for an EA, the game experience is excellent, even will many bug or bud.

These changes show that GGG is both aware and willing to evolve their systems. My main goal was to help highlight areas where they might want to refocus their efforts - not necessarily toward what I or other players prefer, but toward achieving their own vision for the game, whatever that may be.

I believe GGG is among the best development teams when it comes to monitoring and balancing game systems. My article was intended to help clarify potential directions forward.

Again, I apologize if my writing came across as patronizing.

This is quite a wall of text. Chat gpt didn't communicate well. Also it left a lot of typos in.

A lot of your feedback is rehashing nearly a decade of people trying to tell GGG some systems don't feel fun or are weighted too heavily against the player. Some of these issues aren't going to be addressed without a massive overhaul of the game.

Hopefully ea gets better, I didn't want to play it.

Anyway even if I don't agree with your solutions I do agree that poe has a lot of issues with difficulty and drops. At a certain level it doesn't feel like the game knows what it wants to be.

I think ggg definitely didn't respect that souls games have a specific feel. They let you respec for basically free, upgrades are deterministic, bosses and the players can kill each other very quickly, leveling up is fast. Basically all that makes poe2 a soulslike is a dodge roll and monsters leading up to boss are often more dangerous than it.