Feedback on PoE 2: Fundamental confict in game designs

Hi Exiles,

In this feedback post, I'd like to discuss game pacing, combat mechanics (specifically combos), and what I perceive as conflicting elements in Path of Exile 2's current design.

I am a veteran player who has played Path of Exile regularly since the open beta, up until the Archnemesis league. While I wouldn't classify myself as a hardcore gamer in terms of sheer time investment, I consider myself a high tier theorycrafter who enjoys creating interesting and effective builds.

I remember how slow, challenging, and unforgiving the early days of PoE 1 were. PoE 2, while presenting an overall slower game pace than current PoE 1, is still significantly faster and more accessible than its predecessor was at a similar stage of development. There also needs to be room for future power creep, so I don't foresee major issues here beyond some eventual numerical tweaking.

The Core Conflict: Reactive Combat in a High-Paced ARPG

The primary issue, as I see it, stems from a design philosophy pushing for more "deliberate" and reactive combat, which feels at odds with the core identity of Path of Exile and the ARPG genre at large. Examples of these mechanics include:

* Active blocking and parrying.
* Ailments that only exist to make other ailments apply easier
* Mechanics that reward situational awareness, such as benefiting from HP loss, filling a stagger bar, standing still for periods, or capitalizing on brief "opportunity windows."
* Chaining abilities to build up combos for a powerful finishing move.
* Gameplay that requires reacting to specific statuses affecting enemies.

These are mechanics one would typically expect in games with a fundamentally different pacing and gameplay loop, such as No Rest for the Wicked, the Dark Souls series, or even Kingdom Come: Deliverance.

Im a Speed King (see me fly)

Path of Exile has always been a game centered around grinding and clear speed. This isn't just a player preference; it's reinforced by game systems: we have races with rewards and competitive ladders. The core gameplay loop involves annihilating hundreds of monsters, not slowly and tactically fighting our way through mobs in one-on-one combat. Better clear speed directly translates to more experience, more loot, and faster progression through endgame systems.

Consider current endgame mapping: mechanics like Breach and Delirium inherently demand speed. You are often overwhelmed by a screen full of monsters, projectiles, and ground effects. In such scenarios, you need to be constantly moving, watching out for dangerous abilities, and kiting effectively. The best defense has consistently been proactive movement and manual avoidance. Does anyone truly want to stand still in a Simulacrum wave, waiting to get hit so they can parry an attack?

The reason I, and likely many others, would be reluctant to engage with sophisticated combos, active blocking, stagger bar management, or meticulously tracking enemy statuses is simple: there is no time for that. My focus is necessarily on survival and efficient killing while dodging myriad deadly effects. This is precisely why I, as a theorycrafter, gravitate towards builds that are as automated and efficient as possible. While I genuinely enjoy tactical combat in other games, I don't believe there's sufficient room for it in PoE's high-octane endgame, outside of perhaps some specific boss fights.

Furthermore, if we were meant to engage monsters slowly and tactically, how long would a single map completion take, given the sheer size of these areas and the density of monsters required for meaningful progression?

Slow, tactical combat might fit the pacing of Act 1 and encounters with story bosses. Beyond that, I'm afraid it feels misplaced.

A Tale of Two Designs: Jekyll or Hyde?

Currently, PoE 2's design feels as if two separate development teams created two distinct games—one a true sequel to Path of Exile, the other a Dark Souls-inspired experience set in Wraeclast—and then attempted to merge them.

This fundamental dissonance, I believe, is the root cause of many of the current design concerns and much of the negative feedback from a segment of the player base.

This is my perspective, and (unlike some content creators) I don't pretend to be speaking for the entire community. I'd be interested to hear what others think.

Do you want a PoE sequel that iterates on its established strengths, a "Dark Souls PoE," or do you find this current Metamorph approach compelling?

I'd be delighted to hear from their head game designer how he envisioned smelting slow paced RPGs and fast paced action RPG together.
So far its nothing more than a fever dream

I don't agree. I think it is exactly what the genre needed, but it needs tweaking for sure. Also: why keeping two games alive when they feel the same and one of them is only a tweak of the others systems?

But it is true: the more interactive gameplay in an iso-arpg is not easy to do in a game that is still a diablo like and not an isometric DS like No Rest for the Wicked.

But we shouldn't write of the idea, just because it doesn't work perfectly right away. The game is still in development after all.

For me this combat is the evolution the genre needed for a long time.

"

LateBoomer#6874 เขียน:

I don't agree. I think it is exactly what the genre needed, but it needs tweaking for sure. Also: why keeping two games alive when they feel the same and one of them is only a tweak of the others systems?

But it is true: the more interactive gameplay in an iso-arpg is not easy to do in a game that is still a diablo like and not an isometric DS like No Rest for the Wicked.

But we shouldn't write of the idea, just because it doesn't work perfectly right away. The game is still in development after all.

For me this combat is the evolution the genre needed for a long time.

thanks for the input. just to be clear, I did not advocate for PoE2 being the same as PoE1

I wanted to point out that "the more interactive gameplay" does not align with what we face in current endgame, which is as fast and chaotic as in PoE1 (perhaps even more)

I think devs need to decide what they want to do and stand behind their decision. Which can be hard because playerbase and expectations are really high and no matter what they do bunch of people will be mad. Honestly it was really sad to watch devs basically apologize to some entitled youtuber

yeah I agree with that it needs tweaking and you are on point. I think it would have been easier to do it like no rest for the wicked. My guess is, that the balance they are striking for is way harder get right. But if they can pull it of it might be a big leap for the genre as a whole. maybe i am overstating that. I'd have to think about that.

But if they can get this right, it solves the biggest problem in the genre for me: making builds fun but combat boring, if that makes sense.

I enjoy it despite its current flaws so much, that it is hard for me to go back to other games in the genre, even though they are not bad themselves.

The problem is that when one decides to make a game, You first have to have a roadmap / businessplan , allocate some money and when these things are somewhat settled you go into concept phase, before everything else is done.


POE2 never has left the concept phase. They ares till actively working on what PoE2 should be . And are strill trying out concepts that should have been paved 6 years ago , at the start of development.


An alpha is there to fix bugs and reiterate on those concepts if they stand the test. A beta, what we have now is to just fix bugs /stability, but the core gameplay should be set in stone - and later expandable with new content.


We are lightyears away from a concept set in stone that appeals to PoE1 players and newcomers alike. Let alone a satisfying endgame.


THis is scary.

"

LateBoomer#6874 เขียน:

But if they can get this right, it solves the biggest problem in the genre for me: making builds fun but combat boring, if that makes sense.

Yes, good point. Ive had most of the fun with theorycrafting. When actually playing my build, the fun comes from watching my build bloom and work, rather then from the combat itself

edit: thats why I usually ended a league having 4 chars at lvl 90 rather than 1 char at lvl 98

"

Schranzfranz#4329 เขียน:

The problem is that when one decides to make a game, You first have to have a roadmap / businessplan , allocate some money and when these things are somewhat settled you go into concept phase, before everything else is done.


POE2 never has left the concept phase. They ares till actively working on what PoE2 should be . And are strill trying out concepts that should have been paved 6 years ago , at the start of development.


An alpha is there to fix bugs and reiterate on those concepts if they stand the test. A beta, what we have now is to just fix bugs /stability, but the core gameplay should be set in stone - and later expandable with new content.


We are lightyears away from a concept set in stone that appeals to PoE1 players and newcomers alike. Let alone a satisfying endgame.


THis is scary.

Totally agree. As a person who lived through PoE1 evolution, I can remember back in open beta, there had been more like a family atmosphere, players were very supportive and forgiving and they already loved the game for the countless build options, despite lack of content, network issues etc

Now we have huge playerbase with huge expectations, thinking this game will instantly be better than PoE1, people being entitled and very vocal, want everything "fixed" instantly..

.. yet the game is still searching for its identity

and no matter what you do, there will be lots of hate

I agree with most of what was said, including by the person above.

I think that with some proper changes and balancing, it could work. We still have half the classes, weapons and a lot of gems missing after all so it's also hard to guess what the complete game will look like given that they might also introduce new gameplay defining mechanics such as parry (which isn't necessarily a good thing since parry sucks so bad, but yea).

"

Chaining abilities to build up combos for a powerful finishing move.

This is one of my biggest complains about the whole design philosophy, if it really is what they intend on going with.

1) Combos simply don't work properly with the amount of stuns and mini-stuns in the game right now. Sure you can go out of your way to negate stuns with status, but that just feels bad for multiple reasons.

2) In my view, the whole combo idea destroys build creativity for a large portion of the skills. I have A, B and C, but to make A work I necessarily need to use B and C which doesn't leave space for something that could be interesting like D. As now not only I have to support my main skill which is A, I also have to make the others at least not suck as well. Usually this implies locking my build on a very clearly predefined path chosen by the devs.

3) It's just not worth it. We all know there will be 3 or 4 builds in a patch that can clear a screen with one skill, while you're there comboing your ass off to be able to kill a pack. Again, it just feels bad.

We can go on but there's no point really.

"

Currently, PoE 2's design feels as if two separate development teams created two distinct games—one a true sequel to Path of Exile, the other a Dark Souls-inspired experience set in Wraeclast—and then attempted to merge them.

Pretty much so. But this shouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, it's just that it is.

Bosses being harder can be fun. You can dodge, you can learn animations and you can properly build against them. Dying to them feels fair and killing them can feel rewarding.

Pretty much anything else, though, just feels out of place. The game inevitably pushes you to "one shot or get one shotted" scenarios, where dying doesn't feel fair and killing doesn't feel rewarding either. This also includes some bosses by the end game.

There's also how contradictory it is to have a mechanic like breach and delirium when you wanted to slow down the game, supposedly, but the mechanic itself directly pushes you to playing one shot builds or you end up getting 1/10 of what other people would.

Anyway, all in all, I hope they can really balance things because right now it's just as you said.

"

Ludvator#6587 เขียน:

The Core Conflict: Reactive Combat in a High-Paced ARPG

The primary issue, as I see it, stems from a design philosophy pushing for more "deliberate" and reactive combat, which feels at odds with the core identity of Path of Exile and the ARPG genre at large. Examples of these mechanics include:

* Active blocking and parrying.

It's begin the question. Do ARGPs need to be fast-paced? I think you want the game to be fast-paced. Maybe the devs do too. But perhaps it doesn't have to be. Perhaps it is completely possible to make a really "reactive" game with a 2D top view.

Besides, it is completely possible to have fast paced games where there's a lot of reaction and strategy to do. RTS is a genre where the top gameplay really needs to react to plenty of stimuli while still being really fast paced.

"

Ludvator#6587 เขียน:

* Ailments that only exist to make other ailments apply easier
* Mechanics that reward situational awareness, such as benefiting from HP loss, filling a stagger bar, standing still for periods, or capitalizing on brief "opportunity windows."
* Chaining abilities to build up combos for a powerful finishing move.
* Gameplay that requires reacting to specific statuses affecting enemies.

Is any of the items in this list even new to ARPGs? In Diablo 2 we had blood mana, which is a debuff that killed you if you casted stuff while you were on the debuff. Combos are definitely not new either.

"

Ludvator#6587 เขียน:

Path of Exile has always been a game centered around grinding and clear speed.

I mean, sure. But grinding exists in slow games. And although clear speed is incentivized, there have been slow classes. And regeneration, and life leech, since times immemorial.

I understand the game might be in a state of imbalance or contradiction at the moment. But I am yet to see evidence that these ideas are inherently contradictory and it's not just a matter of number tweaking. We have already seen how just increasing the drop rates suddenly improved things for a lot of people that were claiming that the game was inherently broken and hopeless.