Is the problem Jonathan?

"

Hyperspacing#5593 เขียน:

"

Baroc#2678 เขียน:

Ever since i watched the infamous interview with Zizaran, where he acted sulky at Zizaran's questions, i began to think he might indeed be the problem.

zizs asked some really stupid questions and made himself like like an idiot.

He did what most people on this forum and online do. Complain about something and once pressed...have no solution. It was nice to see Jonathan push back against all his stupid comments with literally nothing of substance other than "I wanna go zoom zoom"

There's defending a product,and then there's actively ignoring feedback from someone genuinely more experienced than YOU because you saw them criticize the game.

At this point I'm genuinely convinced your a dev here.There's no other explanation to saying "Ziz asked basic questions which were stupid".

From what I've seen and heard. His ideas make sense but he doesn't seem to dissect the context of why they make sense. The most infamous for me was about making monsters slower.

He said if they weren't fast. Players would skip them. As a dev myself that's a red flag. Ask why would players skip enemies and the answers become clear then the reasoning falls apart.

Players skip monsters because bosses give better drops which they've now made worse with more bosses in every map. The enemies themselves should stand out and feel worth killing. Magic Find doesn't help the situation I might add by turning the game into a glorified boss rush.

We had access to spam teleport in Diablo 1 and no one rushed Diablo. The journey down to him was much more rewarding. He might have had a +8 ilvl but more rolls on the way was simply better.

Despite wanting to make a different style than what PoE1 turned into they seem to copy many of the same mistakes. Reducing enemy density was one of the first sensible changes I've seen since launch. Less but more meaningful enemies is key to creating engaging combat.

Next would be player damage. No point in better AI if everything dies instantly.

"

Megami83Tensei#9384 เขียน:

"

Hyperspacing#5593 เขียน:

"

Baroc#2678 เขียน:

Ever since i watched the infamous interview with Zizaran, where he acted sulky at Zizaran's questions, i began to think he might indeed be the problem.

zizs asked some really stupid questions and made himself like like an idiot.

He did what most people on this forum and online do. Complain about something and once pressed...have no solution. It was nice to see Jonathan push back against all his stupid comments with literally nothing of substance other than "I wanna go zoom zoom"

There's defending a product,and then there's actively ignoring feedback from someone genuinely more experienced than YOU because you saw them criticize the game.

At this point I'm genuinely convinced your a dev here.There's no other explanation to saying "Ziz asked basic questions which were stupid".

Bro I barely know how my own computer works let alone how to make a video game. No for most people he did ask stupid questions and that is why he got called out during the interview for asking stupid questions. Jonathan and Mark both asked him to expand and Ziz couldn't. He just said this stupid statements without providing any content or alternative.

They're not actively ignoring feedback. Go watch the interview again. They made it very clear that they are taking feedback that is well thought out and not just stupid statements like "campaign hard" or "I want to go faster". The interview was a good view of how some players just complain about stuff and then when you ask them for a solution they just fold like a paper cup.

so how long have you been working at ggg?

Krillson, son of fisherman. Come and save that world

"

Xzorn#7046 เขียน:

From what I've seen and heard. His ideas make sense but he doesn't seem to dissect the context of why they make sense. The most infamous for me was about making monsters slower.

He said if they weren't fast. Players would skip them. As a dev myself that's a red flag. Ask why would players skip enemies and the answers become clear then the reasoning falls apart.

Players skip monsters because bosses give better drops which they've now made worse with more bosses in every map. The enemies themselves should stand out and feel worth killing. Magic Find doesn't help the situation I might add by turning the game into a glorified boss rush.

We had access to spam teleport in Diablo 1 and no one rushed Diablo. The journey down to him was much more rewarding. He might have had a +8 ilvl but more rolls on the way was simply better.

Despite wanting to make a different style than what PoE1 turned into they seem to copy many of the same mistakes. Reducing enemy density was one of the first sensible changes I've seen since launch. Less but more meaningful enemies is key to creating engaging combat.

Next would be player damage. No point in better AI if everything dies instantly.

That is what I took from the entire interview in discussion. Was that Ziz was just making these statements and once pushed they fell apart.

I do think most people who are asking for similar changes don't realize what they are truly asking. I do construction for a living. 99% of owners will ask for something and have 0 clue how it is actually done or what they're really implying when asking for the thing.

I really enjoyed when Jonathan pushed back and pressed him on what he meant. Then explained that its not good game design at all to do what he is asking.

The direction seems to be going in the more engaging and meaningful combat and less clear screen. Which as a business owner is a smart move. You don't want 2 copy/paste games out there that you gotta make content for. Have 2 distinct games that can capture 2 different audiences.

The fact this is lossed on 99% of the people in this forum who complain about the game shows these people have 0 clue how businesses operate.

"

Hyperspacing#5593 เขียน:

"

Xzorn#7046 เขียน:

From what I've seen and heard. His ideas make sense but he doesn't seem to dissect the context of why they make sense. The most infamous for me was about making monsters slower.

He said if they weren't fast. Players would skip them. As a dev myself that's a red flag. Ask why would players skip enemies and the answers become clear then the reasoning falls apart.

Players skip monsters because bosses give better drops which they've now made worse with more bosses in every map. The enemies themselves should stand out and feel worth killing. Magic Find doesn't help the situation I might add by turning the game into a glorified boss rush.

We had access to spam teleport in Diablo 1 and no one rushed Diablo. The journey down to him was much more rewarding. He might have had a +8 ilvl but more rolls on the way was simply better.

Despite wanting to make a different style than what PoE1 turned into they seem to copy many of the same mistakes. Reducing enemy density was one of the first sensible changes I've seen since launch. Less but more meaningful enemies is key to creating engaging combat.

Next would be player damage. No point in better AI if everything dies instantly.

That is what I took from the entire interview in discussion. Was that Ziz was just making these statements and once pushed they fell apart.

I do think most people who are asking for similar changes don't realize what they are truly asking. I do construction for a living. 99% of owners will ask for something and have 0 clue how it is actually done or what they're really implying when asking for the thing.

I really enjoyed when Jonathan pushed back and pressed him on what he meant. Then explained that its not good game design at all to do what he is asking.

The direction seems to be going in the more engaging and meaningful combat and less clear screen. Which as a business owner is a smart move. You don't want 2 copy/paste games out there that you gotta make content for. Have 2 distinct games that can capture 2 different audiences.

The fact this is lossed on 99% of the people in this forum who complain about the game shows these people have 0 clue how businesses operate.

Every post I see is commented by this dude. yeah we agree your opinion is the best and youre the best POE player here.

"

Hyperspacing#5593 เขียน:

"

Xzorn#7046 เขียน:

From what I've seen and heard. His ideas make sense but he doesn't seem to dissect the context of why they make sense. The most infamous for me was about making monsters slower.

He said if they weren't fast. Players would skip them. As a dev myself that's a red flag. Ask why would players skip enemies and the answers become clear then the reasoning falls apart.

Players skip monsters because bosses give better drops which they've now made worse with more bosses in every map. The enemies themselves should stand out and feel worth killing. Magic Find doesn't help the situation I might add by turning the game into a glorified boss rush.

We had access to spam teleport in Diablo 1 and no one rushed Diablo. The journey down to him was much more rewarding. He might have had a +8 ilvl but more rolls on the way was simply better.

Despite wanting to make a different style than what PoE1 turned into they seem to copy many of the same mistakes. Reducing enemy density was one of the first sensible changes I've seen since launch. Less but more meaningful enemies is key to creating engaging combat.

Next would be player damage. No point in better AI if everything dies instantly.

That is what I took from the entire interview in discussion. Was that Ziz was just making these statements and once pushed they fell apart.

I do think most people who are asking for similar changes don't realize what they are truly asking. I do construction for a living. 99% of owners will ask for something and have 0 clue how it is actually done or what they're really implying when asking for the thing.

I really enjoyed when Jonathan pushed back and pressed him on what he meant. Then explained that its not good game design at all to do what he is asking.

The direction seems to be going in the more engaging and meaningful combat and less clear screen. Which as a business owner is a smart move. You don't want 2 copy/paste games out there that you gotta make content for. Have 2 distinct games that can capture 2 different audiences.

The fact this is lossed on 99% of the people in this forum who complain about the game shows these people have 0 clue how businesses operate.

As a game dev you want to make a game people would enjoy. But i dont think that the current iteration is really enjoyable for msot and the player retention shows that. Every League its less and less players and this league had the worst player retention of all.
It just shows me that teh current direction of the game is not what people want.

Combine this with technical issues and Bugs. And you have a disaster.
Yes the game still has a lot of players, but the game had a free weekend and the palyer numbers were still bad.
Also we are close to christmas where players generally have more time. But is this reflected in the player number no.

"

Hyperspacing#5593 เขียน:

"

Xzorn#7046 เขียน:

From what I've seen and heard. His ideas make sense but he doesn't seem to dissect the context of why they make sense. The most infamous for me was about making monsters slower.

He said if they weren't fast. Players would skip them. As a dev myself that's a red flag. Ask why would players skip enemies and the answers become clear then the reasoning falls apart.

Players skip monsters because bosses give better drops which they've now made worse with more bosses in every map. The enemies themselves should stand out and feel worth killing. Magic Find doesn't help the situation I might add by turning the game into a glorified boss rush.

We had access to spam teleport in Diablo 1 and no one rushed Diablo. The journey down to him was much more rewarding. He might have had a +8 ilvl but more rolls on the way was simply better.

Despite wanting to make a different style than what PoE1 turned into they seem to copy many of the same mistakes. Reducing enemy density was one of the first sensible changes I've seen since launch. Less but more meaningful enemies is key to creating engaging combat.

Next would be player damage. No point in better AI if everything dies instantly.

That is what I took from the entire interview in discussion. Was that Ziz was just making these statements and once pushed they fell apart.

I do think most people who are asking for similar changes don't realize what they are truly asking. I do construction for a living. 99% of owners will ask for something and have 0 clue how it is actually done or what they're really implying when asking for the thing.

I really enjoyed when Jonathan pushed back and pressed him on what he meant. Then explained that its not good game design at all to do what he is asking.

The direction seems to be going in the more engaging and meaningful combat and less clear screen. Which as a business owner is a smart move. You don't want 2 copy/paste games out there that you gotta make content for. Have 2 distinct games that can capture 2 different audiences.

The fact this is lossed on 99% of the people in this forum who complain about the game shows these people have 0 clue how businesses operate.

I'm not sure if I misunderstood or you did. I think in that situation Johnathan had a misguided perspective on the subject. He more or less said it was bad game design because players would skip enemies. Forcing players to engage in enemies is not good game design either.

The player should want to fight these enemies. Even the annoying ones for their builds. The main reason players don't is because they've put too much weight on boss drops and clear speed.

That's not an ARPG problem. It's a PoE problem. Obviously there will be some min/max on clear efficiency but GGG has catered to this so much that it seems the devs themselves think it normal.

Just look at PoE1 Exarch, Eater and Maven. They were literally a meter based on map speed completion in order to fight the bosses for the real loot. That's awful.

Why are some of you so determined to stay on the "PoE2 is ruined" train like it's the last ride out of Wraeclast?

PoE2 started life as a PoE1 expansion idea, sure, but it clearly took the "separate game" exit a long time ago. And it has to. If PoE2 was just PoE1 with a new coat of paint, it would be competing with PoE1 for the exact same audience. Congrats, you invented internal cannibalization.

They're aiming for a slower game. More deliberate. A bit "souls-y". Less "zoom zoom, delete the screen, loot-piñata, next map". Whether they fully land it or not is a separate question, but the direction itself makes sense. I actually like the idea that the game isn't another speedrunning competition where the only metric is "how many maps per hour can I turn into confetti".

Do I personally love memorizing every elite/boss combo like I'm studying for an exam? Not really. I don't want my ARPG to feel like a second job. But I still get what they're trying to do. Make each map matter. Make it a challenge. More like an MMORPG dungeon run where the instance has weight, not a hallway you sprint through while everything evaporates.

My biggest issue isn't even the slower pace. It's the league/season setup.

I know the "it's for testing" argument, but why are standard players effectively punished by being locked out of new content? I don't have the time (or patience) to restart from scratch every league. Leagues are great for streamers and the hard-ass no-lifers (no offense, you're built different). For casual players, this feels like "we didn't test enough, so you get to do the QA... but only if you reroll again".

If the answer is "we need more testing", then cool - hire more people and test more. Don't make access to new content a recurring reset tax for anyone who isn't living in the game.