Please don't be like blizzard
" Agreed. Its more GOTCHA than free to play. Being a full retail priced game would be much cheaper lol. Probably spent 200 bucks already but im due stopping playing until new acts. If end game is the same im moving on after the new campaign. |
![]() |
" This alone proves I shouldn't waste time having a dialogue with you. |
![]() |
" Keep in mind, while you and many others spend way more, than a full retail-priced game would cost, on PoE, that's not only a decision we made, it benefits the player base. If you spend 200 bucks in PoE, you had your reason to spend more money than you would have only on stash (don't forget stash sales), but YOU spending more money evens out with ppl spending nothing (or only money on stash). These people, you basically finance with your spending, are really important. They contribute to the in-game economy and keep the game alive too. I know many ppl who bought stash and that's it. They get their MTX for free via challenges. It's a great thing that ppl can technically play the game for free, while we mainly keep it running with cosmetics. |
![]() |
" Agreed. I have the view that any game with active support and constantly bringing new content need to be funded and I see gaming as a hobby and hobbies cost money. I personally feel that 50 to 100 per month is very reasonable on something I enjoy. I am definitely a spender and make a point to do so every month so I tend to play games with micro transactions, maybe an addiction im not sure lol but unless there is an overhaul of end game and it comes closer to the campaign experience I will be moving on. Im sure many spenders will be the same. I will definitely be back for the campaign if it doesn't take too long. If I start a new game and become invested in that game it's very unlikely I will be back to even try the new acts. This game will be a distant memory. |
![]() |
" I understand you only have micro experience, like POE1 volume. You don't have to understand how macro works, thats fine. Im dealing with macro games about 2 decades. Dernière édition par avantasian#4928, le 6 févr. 2025 20:06:51
|
![]() |
" Gaslighting yourself into thinking you understand things is not called experience, it's called Dunning-Kruger. Yeah dude, let's "nerf" Monk and "Mages" (Sorc/Witch), the most popular classes atm by 30% instead of nerfing the reasons why they are strong, which most classes can use, like "HOWA" or "Pillar" or "Skills". THIS will get you sooo much player retention, unbelievable. Deal 20 more years with macro games and come back when you have a clue. |
![]() |
the only problem of the idea of mid game balance is assuming that ggg is capable of slightly balancing stuff.
example : cast on freeze. deleted. not nerfed, not reduced. simply deleted. so in this scenario, any hypothetical scenarios around small buff and nerfs are out the window. plus they like the game being imabalanced as poe 1 proved it for years. are we even sure they dont like what they see in endgame ? they did add temporalis in the game. the players didnt add the item themselves |
![]() |
" It only has upsides if a game is already at least somewhat balanced. In PoE2, we have life builds with 4k hp and attack skills with 2 second animation and then builds with 27k ES, 20% flat damage reduction, max block, and an army of minions to tank all the aggro. Making balance changes every few months just won't work. |
![]() |
a buff to couple classes wouldnt hurt. but they probably "work as intended" lolol. you play warrior while the dev play the op classes and feel the sweet power of gatekeeping
|
![]() |
I think classes will never be balanced with this approach, and I guess I'm fine with that. Like, different classes will be different difficulty mode, instead of having difficulty modes implicitly.
I find it a bit weird though that skillful players will always have less currency and achievements this way, than those who just play a broken build. But this way game probably will be more popular, and it is not competitive game, so why not. I wouldn't even mind having pay-to-win if it helps to deliver more content (but this probably actually reduce profit in the long run). Current system I would call "play-boring-to-win", I guess it's more popular that pay-to-win. Dernière édition par Suchka_777#4336, le 6 févr. 2025 21:58:34
|
![]() |