Chris Wilson defends instant logout with all the wrong excuses

"

suszterpatt a écrit :

"

Snorkle_uk a écrit :

what i dont agree with is that theres a 1 shot meta in terms of monster damage, and that 1 shots are everywhere. In my experience theres telegraphed boss 1 shots like slams, and outside of that theres hardly any at all, with the caviat that we are talking about a character with an appropriate level of defence for the level of content. If someones running around with 5.5k life, 15k evasion and acrobatics in hard red tier maps then yeah, thats a death trap setup thats gonna get gibbed by mobs in a map. I feel like I hardly ever get instantly killed by mobs even when Im playing awful builds like that if Im being honest.

[...]

I think we're fundamentally in agreement here, then. What I mean by oneshot meta is that the incoming damage from monsters is often very much, very quickly. Obviously, how tanky you build your characters can change whether you actually die to that damage or not, but the fact remains that it's something everyone has to deal with. Over time, 15k evasion and acro could give over 50% mitigation, but the reason such a build doesn't work in red maps is because you can and will take your full life pool's worth of damage in one hit. But if there were no big hits like that, it would be impossible to kill someone with an instant logout macro.

You're absolutely right that the clearspeed meta can obfuscate this problem. Even if we accept that people don't build their chars tanky enough (by whatever metric you want to use), it's reaonably justified: you can get away with building glass cannons that are literally untouchable by most monsters due to their speed. And if you do get hit? Doesn't really matter, as long as you don't die you can just instalog out of there and nothing can ever go wrong.

And yes, it certainly doesn't help that some endgame builds deal literally hundreds of times the DPS of other builds.



You know, for all the talk about how big of a rebalance job it would require to add a logout timer, I can imagine a fairly accurate approximation. Just take PoE as it is, and:
- Add a 5 second logout timer
- Multiply player life/ES by a factor of 10
- Multiply monster life/ES by a factor of 10-100, depending on the monster

Just enough so that encounters are guaranteed to last at least a few seconds. Wouldn't that make for a more engaging experience than just running past mobs and blowing them up before they can lift a finger? And wouldn't it be much more of an adrenaline rush when things start going wrong, knowing you can't just instantly chicken out, instead you're forced to solve the problem on the game's terms?

fair points.

"

suszterpatt a écrit :

You know, for all the talk about how big of a rebalance job it would require to add a logout timer, I can imagine a fairly accurate approximation. Just take PoE as it is, and:
- Add a 5 second logout timer
- Multiply player life/ES by a factor of 10
- Multiply monster life/ES by a factor of 10-100, depending on the monster

My current lv 88 HC jug has 6400 life, if he had 64,000 (!) his regen would be over 4000/sec without even trying. There would be LOTS of other things that would need a complete re-work then just what you mention. like almost everything...

Adding 5 seconds to the logout timer would be rough for us now in the games current state. However if you are boosting everyone's life by 10x? LOL, then the timer would be absolutely meaningless. Exiting the game when in danger would not only be safer, but you would have plenty of extra time to consider should I leave or go? you could get on the phone with your friends and have a long discussion about it before deciding to close the game. no character would EVER die in HC with that kind of a buffer.

Also, you titled this thread (click bait much?) blaming the lead dev of using 'wrong excuses' for defending a basic game mechanic, when you yourself are actually making an argument here that "THE WHOLE ENTIRE GAME" should be rebalanced! the 'add 5 second' to the logout timer is just a tiny inconsequential part of that.

"

Zee a écrit :

"

suszterpatt a écrit :

You know, for all the talk about how big of a rebalance job it would require to add a logout timer, I can imagine a fairly accurate approximation. Just take PoE as it is, and:
- Add a 5 second logout timer
- Multiply player life/ES by a factor of 10
- Multiply monster life/ES by a factor of 10-100, depending on the monster

My current lv 88 HC jug has 6400 life, if he had 64,000 (!) his regen would be over 4000/sec without even trying. There would be LOTS of other things that would need a complete re-work then just what you mention. like almost everything...

Adding 5 seconds to the logout timer would be rough for us now in the games current state. However if you are boosting everyone's life by 10x? LOL, then the timer would be absolutely meaningless. Exiting the game when in danger would not only be safer, but you would have plenty of extra time to consider should I leave or go? you could get on the phone with your friends and have a long discussion about it before deciding to close the game. no character would EVER die in HC with that kind of a buffer.

Like I said, it's not a complete recipe, just a fun thought experiment. Obviously, %-based regen and similar effects wouldn't work as they are, but just imagine that those are nerfed accordingly. The point is that the current "oneshot or get oneshot" meta that stems from the existence of instant logout creates a really unengaging play experience, which could be greatly improved if there was more interaction between players and monsters.

"

Zee a écrit :

Also, you titled this thread (click bait much?) blaming the lead dev of using 'wrong excuses' for defending a basic game mechanic, when you yourself are actually making an argument here that "THE WHOLE ENTIRE GAME" should be rebalanced! the 'add 5 second' to the logout timer is just a tiny inconsequential part of that.

On the contrary. The oneshot meta is a logical and necessary cosequence of allowing instant logout, and it creates a host of other issues in turn. Rebalancing the game around defenses and sustain while also allowing instant logout would mean that anyone could instalog their way to level 100 in HC. As long as instant logout is allowed, the only way to prevent that is via oneshots, which at the end of the day makes for a less enjoyable game. It is just one thing, but it's one thing with enormous ramifications.

"

suszterpatt a écrit :

Like I said, it's not a complete recipe, just a fun thought experiment. Obviously, %-based regen and similar effects wouldn't work as they are, but just imagine that those are nerfed accordingly. The point is that the current "oneshot or get oneshot" meta that stems from the existence of instant logout creates a really unengaging play experience, which could be greatly improved if there was more interaction between players and monsters.

I disagree entirely that the 'one-shot' meta is caused by players having access to instant exit.

When I read that the game devs 'balance' around the possibility of players exiting the game I interrupt that as meaning something like this: 'monsters with various auras and ghosted could potentially appear in a small area, all overlapping and creating a too-dangerous/unfair situation for the player' answer: 'well, they could always just exit the game!'... I don't think it was a 'we need to kill more players, but they are cleaver and the only way we can actually get them is to have bosses hit for HUGE damage that nobody could survive or exit the game in time to save themselves'

When I make a HC character I invest heavily in life and defense. I have still enough points for offence to keep the pace fast - if I have 5500 life at level 80, and get hit for 5200 damage, I take note, thank my lucky stars I made that investment (at the cost of slower kill speed) and avoid that boss next time. That was my experience, everyone else who only had 5000 life is bitching on the forums they get 1-shot.

"

suszterpatt a écrit :

On the contrary. The oneshot meta is a logical and necessary cosequence of allowing instant logout, and it creates a host of other issues in turn. Rebalancing the game around defenses and sustain while also allowing instant logout would mean that anyone could instalog their way to level 100 in HC. As long as instant logout is allowed, the only way to prevent that is via oneshots, which at the end of the day makes for a less enjoyable game. It is just one thing, but it's one thing with enormous ramifications.

that's quite an assumption you have there based on suspicions...

I think players like to go as fast as possible at all times, pushing limits loading up MF gear, its natural for many players to reach the conclusion that 'the best offence is a good defense' or in other words, kill fast and don't give them time to hit you. it WORKS! but eventually it fails and when it does fail, it does so all at once. there is your one-shot meta. (and I do agree its a problem actually, but its not with GGG's balancing)

Maybe you should try playing a HC character and 'instalog your way to 100' and see how wrenched of a strategy that is and always was. it does not work, it has never worked, and players that try and do that never improve their skills. I don't think ANYONE has ever done this in the past for GGG to be saying 'hey these guys are exiting the game before we can kill them, time for the one-shots!!' now... there is a real problem deep down in there - its the old d2 issue with 'chicken scripts' or automated logouts, and that IS cheating. they DO need to shut that shit down or it really will make your arguments valid here, but to a degree, famous players stream - we can all see what's happening and even if a few guys are cheating successfully out there, hopefully its minimal and wont affect us that much.

What you want is a fairytale that could never exist. once you rebalance things player will either do one of two things: Quit because the game is too slow paced of a slugfest, or find new ways to push the new balancing to its limits and you would have the same problem all over again, but with a slightly different flavor.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply! my apologies if I seemed accusing or rude. I do feel your intentions are in the right place, but IMO the whole issue is a) more complicated then it seems, and b) caused by players pushing limits of GGG's balancing - if you are killing 'too fast' then you have more offence then you need, if you are getting one-shot you are either in too dangerous of a place or you don't have enough defense investment... WE are expected to find a way in-between these, that IS the game as it now stands.

"

Zee a écrit :

"

suszterpatt a écrit :

Like I said, it's not a complete recipe, just a fun thought experiment. Obviously, %-based regen and similar effects wouldn't work as they are, but just imagine that those are nerfed accordingly. The point is that the current "oneshot or get oneshot" meta that stems from the existence of instant logout creates a really unengaging play experience, which could be greatly improved if there was more interaction between players and monsters.

I disagree entirely that the 'one-shot' meta is caused by players having access to instant exit.

When I read that the game devs 'balance' around the possibility of players exiting the game I interrupt that as meaning something like this: 'monsters with various auras and ghosted could potentially appear in a small area, all overlapping and creating a too-dangerous/unfair situation for the player' answer: 'well, they could always just exit the game!'... I don't think it was a 'we need to kill more players, but they are cleaver and the only way we can actually get them is to have bosses hit for HUGE damage that nobody could survive or exit the game in time to save themselves'

You bring up a good point. The current system allows GGG to do only cursory balancing, and by allowing instant logout, they get to write off any situation as "shouldn't have been there lol". It gives them an easy out to be lazy about balancing, and focus more on churning out more content. At the same time, the game has serious problems with player retention, so maybe it would be time to focus more on quality than quantity.

"

Zee a écrit :

When I make a HC character I invest heavily in life and defense. I have still enough points for offence to keep the pace fast - if I have 5500 life at level 80, and get hit for 5200 damage, I take note, thank my lucky stars I made that investment (at the cost of slower kill speed) and avoid that boss next time. That was my experience, everyone else who only had 5000 life is bitching on the forums they get 1-shot.

The salient question here is, "why are monsters dealing 5.2k damage at level 80?". I think you'll find very few other games that hit you for a whole life pool's worth of damage while doing level-appropriate content.

"

Zee a écrit :

"

suszterpatt a écrit :

On the contrary. The oneshot meta is a logical and necessary cosequence of allowing instant logout, and it creates a host of other issues in turn. Rebalancing the game around defenses and sustain while also allowing instant logout would mean that anyone could instalog their way to level 100 in HC. As long as instant logout is allowed, the only way to prevent that is via oneshots, which at the end of the day makes for a less enjoyable game. It is just one thing, but it's one thing with enormous ramifications.

that's quite an assumption you have there based on suspicions...

I think players like to go as fast as possible at all times, pushing limits loading up MF gear, its natural for many players to reach the conclusion that 'the best offence is a good defense' or in other words, kill fast and don't give them time to hit you. it WORKS! but eventually it fails and when it does fail, it does so all at once. there is your one-shot meta. (and I do agree its a problem actually, but its not with GGG's balancing)

Like I said, the clearspeed meta obfuscates the problem by making it appear as though a build is tanky enough, when in reality monsters could easily kill it if they could just get a hit in before dying. But I'm quite happy to chalk it up as GGG's fault that it's possible to make builds that fast.

"

Zee a écrit :

Maybe you should try playing a HC character and 'instalog your way to 100' and see how wrenched of a strategy that is and always was. it does not work, it has never worked, and players that try and do that never improve their skills. I don't think ANYONE has ever done this in the past for GGG to be saying 'hey these guys are exiting the game before we can kill them, time for the one-shots!!'

That's my entire point. You can't do that now, because just about anything can kill you before you can log. And a game that's any slower would be completely ruined by the existence of instant logouts. They're innately connected things.

Also, here's a fun challenge for you to illustrate my point:
- You're a game designer
- You want to make reaching level 100 in HC a challenge
- You want to allow instant logout (on a macro, no less)
- You are not allowed to kill players with oneshots

Present a system that can do all 3 of those things at the same time.

Your a special kind of crazy, everybody can see on snorkles account that he killed all the breach lords

https://www.pathofexile.com/account/view-profile/Snorkle_uk/challenges/Breach

challenges -> breach league -> kill breachlords.

Get a grip before you start slandering people.

It's fucking hilarious at this point how you cherry pick in a post half a page long and still fail this hard.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : he has fucking 36/40 in breach and 83 breach lord kills in total. This is just pure twisting of reality and slander at this point.
Keep this up and i report you for breaching the forum code of conduct.

hehe. I guess Ive only killed 2 breachlords!! achieve says so must be true.

"

Boem a écrit :

https://www.pathofexile.com/account/view-profile/Snorkle_uk/challenges/Breach

according to that I killed 82 breachlords in that league, along with the shaper.

Of course Ive killed the council, theyre easy, I ran all my council sets before they nerfed reach, found 2 bows and sold them. Ive not completed a set since, I just cant be bothered with all the backtracking doing the stuffs for the bits. Now that the new items have in game art I might put some effort in for the skins I guess? Maybe? Whatever lol... who cares.


tl:dr = I trade, so nothing in any trade environment has had any meaning in years. Can you do X? how much does it cost to buy cookiecutter gear that can faceroll it? 5 exalts. Ok so 1 day of farming and I can do X just to say Ive done X, big deal. Id rather have the 5 exalts in all honesty.

just 4 u business :)

happy now?

edit:

and rip :p

"

suszterpatt a écrit :

I'd be fine with leaving instant portals in the game, for the following reasons:


- While portalling out might save you, portalling back in might be just as dangerous if you left your portal in the middle of a large pack or similar.

you have a grace timer on portal just like when you insta logout, whats the difference ?

"

- Unlike a logout macro, a portal macro that both opens a portal and goes through it is illegal as it breaks the "one server action per button press" rule. A macro that only opens the portal is slightly more problematic, but still not as egregious as instant logging out.

portal opens right next to you. you can already simulate everything that logout macro does by choosing 'exit to character screen' button. its just logout macro is faster.

"

As for Helmann's vid: you do realize that this only works in the campaign, where you have unlimited portals into the same encounter. The limited number of portals into maps already solves this problem, so that's irrelevant.

when you instalogout, you also lose a portal. what is exactly your point ?

my point was that if insta-logouts are gone, this is what will take their place

"

gibbousmoon a écrit :

None of your premises are wrong, but your conclusion doesn't follow. I think you are missing the forest for the trees, sir, because you are still looking at a different dichotomy.

spare me the theatrics and leave them for someone who cares

"

It is not necessary to deliberately design exploits into your game (notice how Chris and co. always talk about a "moving meta?")

you operate under the assumption that alt-f4 is somehow is an exploit. I dont have the same assumption,sorry. Im not going to disprove your claim because I dont agree with your assumption. nothing about logout appears to be an exploit, sorry. unless you can explain to me without a reasonable doubt how a logout is an exploit as pertaining to a video game, I dont accept any argument based on that [false] assumption, sorry.

"

in order to make it appeal to serious competitive gamers, and it never has been. In fact it makes no sense, because "meta" by definition is the subversion of game design.

I think whatever youre saying makes less sense than them manipulating meta. changing meta is too easy -because an average player is a sheep who looks at streamers/powergamers and wants to be as powerful as possible with least investment. so a quick balance seesaw and you have a meta change.

"

If this is too abstract for you, consider the following post I made a few months back for a concrete example of how focusing on Category 2 gamers is hurting the game:

your quote makes no sense to me (and actually I dont see the relevance between the two), probably because I dont operate in the same realm you're operating.

Ive played hundreds upon hundreds of PC games in my lifetime. games of this genre that no one here will even recognize by name and by screenshots. games that never even came out in english language and I had to guess the dialogue options in foreign languages and shit.

anyway, the point is Im a PC gaming vet. yet I dont have the word 'noobtrap' in my lexicon and to me, there is no such thing. it does not exist for me.

when I play games, I test out shit; thats the fucking point of games. trial and error is still the GOAT of all learning mechanisms that exist, and especially for video games. as such, you could not be 'trapped' as a noob because through testing you will learn the pros and the cons, the powerful and weak and so on. I never do tutorials except in story games where theyre part of the story (I hate that), I refuse to do them on principle and I dont want games to give me any direction. I want to find out shit by myself, and learn the game and its mechanics and power level by myself.

one thing I can agree on with you in your post - choices are inherently good for the genre. the rest doesnt make much sense. the player power level is so high right now, glacial hammer can do all content (look at mathil video) just fine and can do up to like t16s with a brightbeak (lol), a shitty dps weapon

should poe be better balanced - sure. I fail to see how this has anything to do with that statement you made about categories and how a developer should not ever be in category 2. that is what I dont agree with and never will agree with.

in fact, we have too many developers of category 1 and not nearly enough developers of category 2