Current waystone system is kind of awful
" i didnt say you did, and i didnt make something up. im making a point that when something is way better than the normal outcome we want it. the further from normal it gets the more we want it, and its a game about wanting stuff and then feeling good when we occasionally get the thing we want. you see what im saying? im not saying you are being greedy and just wanting mirrors raining from the sky. im just pointing out theres a relationship there with stuff we dont always get being exciting, and then im posing the question should access to a specific level of map content have an element of that? as a design philosophy should there be a desire to get the 'good' map and then a feels good when you occasionally get it? or should all your maps just be normal? you just take for granted every map you run is the top tier and thats just 0 excitement about the fact its the highest tier, its just expected and given ever time? theres no right or wrong answer there its a matter of opinion. i personally think if youre gonna itemise the map system like this in a game like poe where everything is gambling and wide ranges, hype drops and troll drops, to me it seems right to have a few tiers above whatever 'normal' is that we run sometimes as a treat. otherwise theres no treats, everything is just normal and nothing is special. thats my feeling. everything about this game is about trying to instil a sense of 'special' through rarity. " the way i look at it, if t18 ws normal, and then they added up to t20 to have something special we sometimes do, then that would give more xp and more challenge. would t18 xp then feel bad? its all comparative right? too easy, again, does that mean we should just alwayd get to play t18 or does that mean they should just nerf your build? its getting into balance questions there were allowing t18 always is not the only way to change those issues, xp gains and monster balance can be adjusted, so if it was up to me i would make the call based on the previous question, should the maps we play always just be normal or should there be normal maps and then occasional more exciting maps? " im just replying to the topic tbh. when i say things like youd want to find mirrors i mean that to anyone reading, we all want to drop a mirror in our next map. im not pointing fingers and making judgements im just talking about how we want things that we dont always get. rarity = desire = potential for fun. if nothing is rare nothing is fun. I love all you people on the forums, we can disagree but still be friends and respect each other :)
|
|
" OK -- I misread [misconstrued??] your reply to mean that I wanted to have my cake and eat it too. While we may disagree on some things I believe I better understand what you were getting at. Personally, given map size, perceived slog, etc. during early and mid map progression I'd prefer to see bosses on every node OR, similar to how we can add breech to nodes, I'd love to add bosses to nodes. While adding bosses via tablets isn't my preferred solution [slog to reward] it would be something I'd be willing to compromise on -- at least then I have the agency to address my own problems should I choose to do so. YMMV Last edited by KingAlamar#4071 on Jan 11, 2025, 11:07:49 AM
|
|
" all good, its hard to imply tone etc in text things often get twisted. and to be clear i do get what u lot are saying. back when open beta launched in 2013 i had a lvl90something ek marauder stuck running lvl71 and 72 maps for the most when the top tier of maps was lvl77. my thought at the time was why the hell would you gate me from doing harder content? i have a build that can easily do lvl77 maps, wtf is this nonsense? the idea that you would gate content and difficulty behind rng and not the ability to do it seemed like a total abomination to me. and thats still a valid opinion i just have a different perspective to some extent now because i see difficulty and xp as variables outside of just this dynamic. it comes up a lot atm, this idea of the game design vs difficulty, xp penalties and avoiding risk etc. in poe1 they changed things so we could always run t16, they did change the philosophy. thing is i can destroy a t16 same way my open beta marauder could destroy a lvl72 map. it gets into build diversity then where if t16 is 'normal' and you make it so that only really good builds can survive a t16 then you crush build diversity. so my ideas on difficulty gating, i dunno if they really held up? to have extra challenge maybe you need something above whats perceived as the normal? something people dont just expect to do all the time. they added t17 but that seems pretty controversial. im not sure i like that particular implementation. i really dont think -1 level should be a corruption outcome on waystones. im not trying to silence debate or call people wrong with any of this im just putting the other side of the debate out there, i do personally like the idea that some maps are special and we dont always get to run them, but i have made the other arguments myself too at times. I love all you people on the forums, we can disagree but still be friends and respect each other :)
|
|
" Cool beans. A fair & well-reasoned response. I don't have to agree with everything but agreement isn't the point. Giving feedback, sharing PoVs, etc. is more important -- at least in my opinion. Note: I still like the idea of giving the player more agency over what they want to see. This way there might be more competing "good" choices and compelling choices is important in these styles of game. |
|
