|
hmmm interesting
|
|
|
I hope they also individually focus on SSF balance, since everything related to progress in the game seems to be a gimmick, there's no viable progression since is designed for any trade player to just buy the op item (that didn't manage to get itself) and progress without even actually grinding... the actually grinding seems to be to farm currency, then buy item that you wouldn't even get at your own on SSF or that would be 1000 times harder to get. Also they talked about the importance of crafting, and again, 7 days played on a character and just 5 annulments at max... that's why SSF shouldn't exist if it's not even taken care of, it looks so out of place and unbalanced, trade should be differently balanced from SSF, but if this is a gimmick at the end and all is cared is about the first impression of each iteration of patches, it will eventually die and people will come to the realization of gimmicks, it's really unbalanced, so mediocre. Either you one shot everything or you cannot progress, I still wait to be able to actually fight in the game and not solve everything through a "broken unintended" gimmick that is not exciting at all. Just the same meaningless loop of trade then pretending you are good at the game because you dropped a divine and you started "ramping" while in SSF is so badly designed and it feels really selfish and mediocre.
its like they tested the game creating a character at lvl 60 or 80, with a "realistic" build with MOD privelege to test the progress itself, melting everything or being "optimal" instead of actually playing like a regular player from 0 in SSF and going through all the pain and determine "yep this is fine", then they ask themselves why everything is broken, meaningless or unbalanced. It would be really lame and pointless to think that is an actual approach to test progress or balance at all...
no wonder why ssf feels so painful and meaningless
The legacy mode of ARPG... so out of place
Last edited by Xetruzeph#3161 on Mar 4, 2025, 11:54:52 AM
|
Posted byXetruzeph#3161on Mar 4, 2025, 11:47:18 AM
|
|
Trade fundamentally breaks balance in modern ARPGs, where the entire economy revolves around supply and demand rather than self-sufficient progression. When a game is designed with both trade-enabled and SSF in mind but doesn't separate balance between them, you end up with major design conflicts:
Drop rates are skewed for a trade economy – Since players in trade leagues can buy gear, drop rates are often kept low to maintain value in the market. This makes SSF unnecessarily punishing, as it's balanced around the assumption that players will trade for key items rather than farm them.
Crafting becomes redundant in trade leagues – In SSF, crafting is an essential progression tool. In trade leagues, it’s often overshadowed by just buying a better item from the market, making the whole system feel like a gambling sink rather than a necessity.
Boss difficulty vs. player power scaling – In SSF, bosses should be tuned around what a player can realistically acquire without trading. In trade leagues, the same boss can be trivialized with market-bought gear, which makes balancing encounters a nightmare.
Separate Balancing is the Solution
A game like PoE would benefit massively from separate balancing for SSF and trade leagues, such as:
Adjusted drop rates in SSF to compensate for lack of trade.
Different crafting success rates or mechanics to make self-sufficiency more rewarding.
Boss HP/Damage tuning per mode, since SSF characters will have worse gear on average.
PoE does have SSF as a mode, but it still uses the same trade-driven balancing, which makes it more of a self-imposed challenge than a properly designed alternative. If GGG actually balanced SSF separately, it would create a much fairer experience.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The power gap between trade league and SSF is massive, and it completely breaks the intended difficulty of the game. Bosses that are supposed to be challenging get obliterated in trade leagues because players can just buy the best possible gear within days, while SSF players struggle to even meet the damage thresholds.
Why Bosses Feel Unbalanced Between SSF and Trade
1. Trade League Players Get Insane Power Scaling Instantly
In a trade league, a player can buy a fully optimized build within the first few days of a league.
They don’t have to grind for gear—they just buy it.
This leads to bosses being one-shotted or melted early on, because the game isn't balanced around players reaching that power level so fast.
2. SSF Players Have to Grind for Everything
SSF players must farm their own gear and rely on RNG.
If you don’t get good drops, your damage is much lower compared to a trade player at the same stage.
Bosses feel significantly tankier and take much longer to kill because you don’t have access to perfect gear early.
3. The Game is Balanced Around Trade, Not Fair Challenge
GGG has never properly scaled boss difficulty between trade and SSF.
Boss HP, defenses, and mechanics are tuned around the assumption that players have optimal gear, which is only realistic in trade leagues.
This means that in trade, bosses are a joke, and in SSF, they feel overtuned.
The experience is completely different, yet it’s balanced as if both modes are equal.
How This Could Be Fixed:
If GGG wanted to fix this imbalance, they could:
////// Scale boss HP and defenses differently in SSF (so it matches realistic SSF gear progression).
////// Increase drop rates of key items in SSF (to compensate for lack of trade).
////// Adjust crafting odds in SSF (so self-made gear is actually viable).
Right now, PoE pretends SSF and trade are the same game, but they are completely different in how players scale power. That’s why SSF often feels frustrating—it’s artificially harder, not because of skill, but because it lacks trade’s shortcuts.
|
Posted byXetruzeph#3161on Mar 4, 2025, 12:15:37 PM
|
"
Trade fundamentally breaks balance in modern ARPGs, where the entire economy revolves around supply and demand rather than self-sufficient progression. When a game is designed with both trade-enabled and SSF in mind but doesn't separate balance between them, you end up with major design conflicts:
Drop rates are skewed for a trade economy – Since players in trade leagues can buy gear, drop rates are often kept low to maintain value in the market. This makes SSF unnecessarily punishing, as it's balanced around the assumption that players will trade for key items rather than farm them.
Crafting becomes redundant in trade leagues – In SSF, crafting is an essential progression tool. In trade leagues, it’s often overshadowed by just buying a better item from the market, making the whole system feel like a gambling sink rather than a necessity.
Boss difficulty vs. player power scaling – In SSF, bosses should be tuned around what a player can realistically acquire without trading. In trade leagues, the same boss can be trivialized with market-bought gear, which makes balancing encounters a nightmare.
Separate Balancing is the Solution
A game like PoE would benefit massively from separate balancing for SSF and trade leagues, such as:
Adjusted drop rates in SSF to compensate for lack of trade.
Different crafting success rates or mechanics to make self-sufficiency more rewarding.
Boss HP/Damage tuning per mode, since SSF characters will have worse gear on average.
PoE does have SSF as a mode, but it still uses the same trade-driven balancing, which makes it more of a self-imposed challenge than a properly designed alternative. If GGG actually balanced SSF separately, it would create a much fairer experience.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The power gap between trade league and SSF is massive, and it completely breaks the intended difficulty of the game. Bosses that are supposed to be challenging get obliterated in trade leagues because players can just buy the best possible gear within days, while SSF players struggle to even meet the damage thresholds.
Why Bosses Feel Unbalanced Between SSF and Trade
1. Trade League Players Get Insane Power Scaling Instantly
In a trade league, a player can buy a fully optimized build within the first few days of a league.
They don’t have to grind for gear—they just buy it.
This leads to bosses being one-shotted or melted early on, because the game isn't balanced around players reaching that power level so fast.
2. SSF Players Have to Grind for Everything
SSF players must farm their own gear and rely on RNG.
If you don’t get good drops, your damage is much lower compared to a trade player at the same stage.
Bosses feel significantly tankier and take much longer to kill because you don’t have access to perfect gear early.
3. The Game is Balanced Around Trade, Not Fair Challenge
GGG has never properly scaled boss difficulty between trade and SSF.
Boss HP, defenses, and mechanics are tuned around the assumption that players have optimal gear, which is only realistic in trade leagues.
This means that in trade, bosses are a joke, and in SSF, they feel overtuned.
The experience is completely different, yet it’s balanced as if both modes are equal.
How This Could Be Fixed:
If GGG wanted to fix this imbalance, they could:
////// Scale boss HP and defenses differently in SSF (so it matches realistic SSF gear progression).
////// Increase drop rates of key items in SSF (to compensate for lack of trade).
////// Adjust crafting odds in SSF (so self-made gear is actually viable).
Right now, PoE pretends SSF and trade are the same game, but they are completely different in how players scale power. That’s why SSF often feels frustrating—it’s artificially harder, not because of skill, but because it lacks trade’s shortcuts.
SSF is a self imposed challenge. Don't click the button if you don't enjoy it.
|
Posted bymavikuzu#8368on Mar 4, 2025, 12:45:38 PM
|
"
Finally something good, both uniques are actually GOOD! Still feel like we won't get any weapon or class in 0.2 though which is a bit of a downer, BUT if the Endgame is engaging, i don't really care. The main issue is that I want to play 18h a day until the day I die, so make Endgame expansive first and foremost.
the thing is... that more players playing the game involves server cost, and if they don't manage to profit from mtx but keep spending money on the service is wouldn't be viable for them as a company and at the end is just business to them, it would perfectly explain why things are never fixed, since they just need the first impressions of new content ("substantial big patches" where new mtx are added) to see how much can get from there. live service games were a mistake...
It feels like Path of Exile's design intentionally creates friction and unbalanced modes (like SSF) to keep players engaged for short periods, without retaining them for too long. This makes sense if the game's primary revenue model relies on MTX rather than ongoing subscriptions or purchases.
Server costs rise as more players join, and if those players aren’t spending money on MTX, the game becomes unsustainable.
To manage this, frictional game design (e.g., tough bosses, difficulty spikes) pushes players out of the game, reducing retention.
When players start to drop off, new content drops to hook them back in with possible solutions or even flashy MTX to buy (which we have not seen yet as such because not a big patch, yet it has happened in poe1).
This creates a cycle where the game never truly fixes its core issues because it benefits the company to keep players engaged enough to monetize, but not so long that the balance problems are addressed.
This loop of creating problems, not fixing them, and releasing new content to grab attention explains why so many issues remain unresolved—it’s a deliberate business strategy to maximize profits without worrying about perfecting the experience.
|
Posted byXetruzeph#3161on Mar 4, 2025, 12:57:31 PM
|
|
Yawn!
|
Posted byAzzKikr69#1213on Mar 4, 2025, 12:58:13 PM
|
"
"
Trade fundamentally breaks balance in modern ARPGs, where the entire economy revolves around supply and demand rather than self-sufficient progression. When a game is designed with both trade-enabled and SSF in mind but doesn't separate balance between them, you end up with major design conflicts:
Drop rates are skewed for a trade economy – Since players in trade leagues can buy gear, drop rates are often kept low to maintain value in the market. This makes SSF unnecessarily punishing, as it's balanced around the assumption that players will trade for key items rather than farm them.
Crafting becomes redundant in trade leagues – In SSF, crafting is an essential progression tool. In trade leagues, it’s often overshadowed by just buying a better item from the market, making the whole system feel like a gambling sink rather than a necessity.
Boss difficulty vs. player power scaling – In SSF, bosses should be tuned around what a player can realistically acquire without trading. In trade leagues, the same boss can be trivialized with market-bought gear, which makes balancing encounters a nightmare.
Separate Balancing is the Solution
A game like PoE would benefit massively from separate balancing for SSF and trade leagues, such as:
Adjusted drop rates in SSF to compensate for lack of trade.
Different crafting success rates or mechanics to make self-sufficiency more rewarding.
Boss HP/Damage tuning per mode, since SSF characters will have worse gear on average.
PoE does have SSF as a mode, but it still uses the same trade-driven balancing, which makes it more of a self-imposed challenge than a properly designed alternative. If GGG actually balanced SSF separately, it would create a much fairer experience.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The power gap between trade league and SSF is massive, and it completely breaks the intended difficulty of the game. Bosses that are supposed to be challenging get obliterated in trade leagues because players can just buy the best possible gear within days, while SSF players struggle to even meet the damage thresholds.
Why Bosses Feel Unbalanced Between SSF and Trade
1. Trade League Players Get Insane Power Scaling Instantly
In a trade league, a player can buy a fully optimized build within the first few days of a league.
They don’t have to grind for gear—they just buy it.
This leads to bosses being one-shotted or melted early on, because the game isn't balanced around players reaching that power level so fast.
2. SSF Players Have to Grind for Everything
SSF players must farm their own gear and rely on RNG.
If you don’t get good drops, your damage is much lower compared to a trade player at the same stage.
Bosses feel significantly tankier and take much longer to kill because you don’t have access to perfect gear early.
3. The Game is Balanced Around Trade, Not Fair Challenge
GGG has never properly scaled boss difficulty between trade and SSF.
Boss HP, defenses, and mechanics are tuned around the assumption that players have optimal gear, which is only realistic in trade leagues.
This means that in trade, bosses are a joke, and in SSF, they feel overtuned.
The experience is completely different, yet it’s balanced as if both modes are equal.
How This Could Be Fixed:
If GGG wanted to fix this imbalance, they could:
////// Scale boss HP and defenses differently in SSF (so it matches realistic SSF gear progression).
////// Increase drop rates of key items in SSF (to compensate for lack of trade).
////// Adjust crafting odds in SSF (so self-made gear is actually viable).
Right now, PoE pretends SSF and trade are the same game, but they are completely different in how players scale power. That’s why SSF often feels frustrating—it’s artificially harder, not because of skill, but because it lacks trade’s shortcuts.
SSF is a self imposed challenge. Don't click the button if you don't enjoy it.
sounds like poser design to me,
from a game design perspective, early ARPGs were fundamentally SSF by default because online trading and multiplayer infrastructure were either non-existent or secondary to the core experience. Games like Diablo (1996), Nox (2000), and Divine Divinity (2002) were designed around a self-contained progression system—everything you needed to succeed was within your own ability to farm, craft, or loot.
Even Diablo II (2000), which introduced Battle.net and online trading, was originally built around self-reliance; the loot tables, drop rates, and progression systems assumed a player would be acquiring their own gear. Trading and multiplayer emerged as a way to bypass or optimize that system, rather than being the intended way to play.
duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh what a lazy answer, no wonder the state of the game, dont you have a temporalis to buy and pretend you actually play the game?
Last edited by Xetruzeph#3161 on Mar 4, 2025, 1:01:38 PM
|
Posted byXetruzeph#3161on Mar 4, 2025, 12:58:32 PM
|
|
Something something tower better
something something rue is a cat
something something sushi is a duper
something something reeerity
did i miss anything
|
Posted byBlazerous#6272on Mar 4, 2025, 1:05:10 PM
|
|
Those on the atlas are the icons for strongbox and shrines, meh, i expected much more :\
|
Posted bySkelevra29#7287on Mar 4, 2025, 1:10:13 PM
|
"
"
"
Trade fundamentally breaks balance in modern ARPGs, where the entire economy revolves around supply and demand rather than self-sufficient progression. When a game is designed with both trade-enabled and SSF in mind but doesn't separate balance between them, you end up with major design conflicts:
Drop rates are skewed for a trade economy – Since players in trade leagues can buy gear, drop rates are often kept low to maintain value in the market. This makes SSF unnecessarily punishing, as it's balanced around the assumption that players will trade for key items rather than farm them.
Crafting becomes redundant in trade leagues – In SSF, crafting is an essential progression tool. In trade leagues, it’s often overshadowed by just buying a better item from the market, making the whole system feel like a gambling sink rather than a necessity.
Boss difficulty vs. player power scaling – In SSF, bosses should be tuned around what a player can realistically acquire without trading. In trade leagues, the same boss can be trivialized with market-bought gear, which makes balancing encounters a nightmare.
Separate Balancing is the Solution
A game like PoE would benefit massively from separate balancing for SSF and trade leagues, such as:
Adjusted drop rates in SSF to compensate for lack of trade.
Different crafting success rates or mechanics to make self-sufficiency more rewarding.
Boss HP/Damage tuning per mode, since SSF characters will have worse gear on average.
PoE does have SSF as a mode, but it still uses the same trade-driven balancing, which makes it more of a self-imposed challenge than a properly designed alternative. If GGG actually balanced SSF separately, it would create a much fairer experience.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The power gap between trade league and SSF is massive, and it completely breaks the intended difficulty of the game. Bosses that are supposed to be challenging get obliterated in trade leagues because players can just buy the best possible gear within days, while SSF players struggle to even meet the damage thresholds.
Why Bosses Feel Unbalanced Between SSF and Trade
1. Trade League Players Get Insane Power Scaling Instantly
In a trade league, a player can buy a fully optimized build within the first few days of a league.
They don’t have to grind for gear—they just buy it.
This leads to bosses being one-shotted or melted early on, because the game isn't balanced around players reaching that power level so fast.
2. SSF Players Have to Grind for Everything
SSF players must farm their own gear and rely on RNG.
If you don’t get good drops, your damage is much lower compared to a trade player at the same stage.
Bosses feel significantly tankier and take much longer to kill because you don’t have access to perfect gear early.
3. The Game is Balanced Around Trade, Not Fair Challenge
GGG has never properly scaled boss difficulty between trade and SSF.
Boss HP, defenses, and mechanics are tuned around the assumption that players have optimal gear, which is only realistic in trade leagues.
This means that in trade, bosses are a joke, and in SSF, they feel overtuned.
The experience is completely different, yet it’s balanced as if both modes are equal.
How This Could Be Fixed:
If GGG wanted to fix this imbalance, they could:
////// Scale boss HP and defenses differently in SSF (so it matches realistic SSF gear progression).
////// Increase drop rates of key items in SSF (to compensate for lack of trade).
////// Adjust crafting odds in SSF (so self-made gear is actually viable).
Right now, PoE pretends SSF and trade are the same game, but they are completely different in how players scale power. That’s why SSF often feels frustrating—it’s artificially harder, not because of skill, but because it lacks trade’s shortcuts.
SSF is a self imposed challenge. Don't click the button if you don't enjoy it.
sounds like poser design to me,
from a game design perspective, early ARPGs were fundamentally SSF by default because online trading and multiplayer infrastructure were either non-existent or secondary to the core experience. Games like Diablo (1996), Nox (2000), and Divine Divinity (2002) were designed around a self-contained progression system—everything you needed to succeed was within your own ability to farm, craft, or loot.
Even Diablo II (2000), which introduced Battle.net and online trading, was originally built around self-reliance; the loot tables, drop rates, and progression systems assumed a player would be acquiring their own gear. Trading and multiplayer emerged as a way to bypass or optimize that system, rather than being the intended way to play.
duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh what a lazy answer, no wonder the state of the game, dont you have a temporalis to buy and pretend you actually play the game?
you can farm loot and craft everything on your own in poe. Yawn, anything else?
|
Posted bymavikuzu#8368on Mar 4, 2025, 1:42:23 PM
|
