Keep the gameplay slow and meaningful.

POE2 has no meaningful combat.

Meaningful combat is for WoW.

Making combat slow, clunky, and using generator/spenders to limit how strong a build is does not make it meaningful.

You will never have meaningful combat in mapping.
Meaningful combat requires carefully handcrafted encounters, specific weaknesses, interaction with the environment.
It just doesn't work well with random monsters having random modifiers randomly placed on a procedurally generated area.
The only place for meaningful combat in this game is boss fight.

But surely for some slop enjoyers here, you just need to throw them a bunch of hp sponges, and they'll call it "difficult" and "meaningful".

"

Raedhys#5612 написал:

You will never have meaningful combat in mapping.
Meaningful combat requires carefully handcrafted encounters, specific weaknesses, interaction with the environment.
It just doesn't work well with random monsters having random modifiers randomly placed on a procedurally generated area.
The only place for meaningful combat in this game is boss fight.

But surely for some slop enjoyers here, you just need to throw them a bunch of hp sponges, and they'll call it "difficult" and "meaningful".

The core problem driving the "slow combat" debate isn't intrinsically the speed meta itself, but a conflict between the design intent and the current endgame loop. Or in other words, why is speed the primary and most sough after playstyle currently?

The debate stems from two primary issues:

The continuous discussion around the "vision of PoE2" as mentioned by the devs creates unnecessary space for the slow-play "camp" to push for radical, genre-breaking changes. The high-speed community needs GGG to reaffirm the ARPG power fantasy.

The game's reliance on endless mapping as the primary endgame inherently demands maximum clear speed. This is a content problem, not a speed problem. The lack of endgame content just incentivizes speed when playing.

When talking to the proponents of "slower combat" and their arguments, they seem to split into three main camps

The Unviable Solutions (in my opinion): Players demanding genuinely Souls-like slow combat or a system where skills are indistinguishable (thus killing build diversity). These demands fundamentally do not compute with the ARPG genre's core loop or Path of Exile's historical strength.


The players who correctly identify the need for more endgame mechanics that promote different efficient builds—such as high-end, niche content requiring tankiness or single-target attrition (like Valdo's Haunter/Armour stackers).

The solution is not to slow down the game for everyone, but to improve the endgame to reward multiple paths to maximum efficiency, without lowering the overall speed ceiling. We must fight for more content, not less power.

Maximum efficiency, maximum reward.

Edit: Also the problem with Deadeyes/Rangers in game is that it's the only class in the game with the easiest access to movement skills / nodes, as there again is a lack of content in regards to movement abilities or access to MS nodes for other classes. Hence why almost everyone that wants to optimize their playstyle for efficiency tends to go for Ranger. That and the disgusting Rhoa.

Slow Meaningful or Engaging. Pick 2. That is what you have currently. I don't believe a Path of Exile franchise title is capable of all three. The premise they have started with and what they are doubling down on is not working.

Yeah, I'd love to see these games double down on PoE 1 = Zoom, PoE 2 = Methodical

For me what makes combat engaging in an arpg is decision-making based on monster pack composition. There's a dangerous caster I want to burn down with dps, and there's a pack of swarmers I want to have enough toughness to shrug off while I do that, and there's a couple big bruisers I want to have the mobility to avoid until they're alone.

I find Act 1, 2, and part of 3 really enjoyable because the monster packs have this variety and I feel rewarded for changing my tactics depending on what's on the screen. By the time we get to lvl13 maps and beyond, everything is on the screen all at once always, and if you're not wiping that screen every second you're dead. I'm not making decisions at that point, and all the monsters are just showcases for beautiful graphic design. It feels like staring at a color-shifting macbook screensaver.

And yes, the gearing and build-making that gets your character to that point is its own game. PoE 1 is fantastic at this, and it's very very satisfying to feel like you've broken the game to your will.

That's why I love that PoE 2 has the potential to be different. Sometimes I like having to pay attention to what's going on and to respond to it. For me the most exciting thing in 0.4 is the density change, because it gives me hope that GGG is still committed to making this kind of game.

There can be meaningful combat in mapping. I'll be quoting myself:

"These are my main ideas how to make each individual combat encounter, consisting typically of 1-4 rares and the mobs sourrounding them, feel more meaningful and engaging:

a) give rare monsters a specific ability
The idea here is that when you see a rare monster, you'll know what it does, because each of the rare monsters would have a specific ability particular to that monster. So there could be rare skeleton mage monster type that always call down a meteor at the player, there could be a rare tanky berserker that always gets increased attack damage when attacking a player uninterrupted and so on.
This improves visual clarity, feels thematic and makes them feel less generic (the actual monster type matters, not just the random rare modifiers). The following ideas also build up onto this.

b) rework monster modifiers to work more like support gems
There can still be generic monster modifiers like we have right now, having a role like increasing the monsters survivability. My idea is to add another type of monster modifiers that work more like support gems: our meteor calling skeleton mage has a "mage type" ability and this ability can be supported by "mage type" monster modifiers. One modifier would let the meteor leave burning ground behind, another modifier would let it echo a 2nd time. Our tanky berserker would get monster modifiers from a different set: e.g. they could give him additional lifesteal or attack speed. This way monsters get meaningful sets of modifiers that fit well together and the main monster ability can be modified in interesting ways.

c) add a single archetype to some rare monsters
An archetype changes a rare monster in a way specific to that archetype and can be recognized by a small icon. Let me give some examples:
"the caster" is a monster whos primarly threat lies in using its active ability against the player, to achieve this he gets an additional modifier and 2 of his modifiers are guranteed to support his ability
"the warrior" is a monster whos primarly threat lies in its more basic attacks that deal high damage while he has also good survivability
"the general" buffs the normal and magic (not rare) monsters around him, this could be by increasing their survivability through large shields or granting them short attack speed and damage buffs
"the leader" is buffed while being sourrounded by normal and magic monsters, e.g. he takes less damage while those still live, can sacrifice them to heal himself etc.
"the summoner" brings new monsters into play as long as he's alive, he could be a necromancer, swarm host or plant summoning druid
"the channeler" has a powerful channel ability (e.g. channeling a hard to dodge meteor shower instead of a single meteor) that can be interrupted, because he needs some time to channel and is vulnerable to any kind of crowd control like stun / freeze during that time
"the growing threat" becomes stronger over time, becoming more of a threat, the longer he is ignored by the player, a variant of this could be "evolution": lets the monster evolve into a more powerful form after a while like growing wings and getting an additional powerful attack pattern
"the tank" has good survivability and an ability (e.g. parry, magical shield) that lets him benefit from absorbing player damage for a short time

A main idea here is to create strong rare monsters that require distinct responses from the player in how to deal with them while also making it recognizeable at a glance what kind of monster archetype one is encountering and therefore what to roughly expect without having to learn 500+ different monsters.

d) Make monsters tanky enough to survive for a while, so that players actually need to engage with them. This is especially important for the rare monsters. The "general" archetype is also intended to help with this - creating encounters were those white / magic monsters pose more of a threat than usual."

+1 to OP. This game should be slow, thought out, meaningful, and have impactful play. If you want zoom zoom flashing till you eyes bleed and clear maps in 10 seconds flat go play poe 1

"

komji#3796 написал:

+1 to OP. This game should be slow, thought out, meaningful, and have impactful play. If you want zoom zoom flashing till you eyes bleed and clear maps in 10 seconds flat go play poe 1

Why can't both playstyles exist in the same game, as it is in PoE1 where you both have armour stackers that are able to do content facetanking an absurd amount of damage e.g: https://youtu.be/WMlVfbqyo3g?t=507 while also having the opportunity to blast maps with "1 click zoomer builds" as is the current "meta" of PoE2?

why does the base mapping experience have to be slow and meaningful? (whatever that means) doesn't it make more sense to save that for the league mechanics and bosses?

imo the only thing the base "canvas" needs is a sweet layout, let players populate it with whatever content they want, 0.5 let's go!

also, people should really think about a topic for a while before posting about it... how does slow and meaningful combat look like in a game that allows for really high defensive scaling, ms scaling, as scaling, reduction to enemy as and ms, and even complete cc?

you guys willing to remove all does mechanics or are you just trolling in these posts?

Nah.
I'm gonna check out the new lore and mechanic and that's it. The gameplay isn't engaging it always feels like treading through a pit of mud while pulling teeth.

The only 'meaningfulness' that I can feel is when rolling maps since there are less portals. Everything in combat feels hollow. 3 step program to do one good hit while the so called mechanics are either straight copies from poe1 that doesn't translate well to poe2's slow and methodical approach, or a glowing red line you aren't supposed to stand in. Giant AoE blasts are fine if you have enough ms to get out of them but RIP to every warrior player trudging out of them with -40% ms (it's his punishment for liking bonks).

Most lategame builds delete the screen either way which makes the whole "meaningful combat" delusions just shallow. If you want to make it so you have to make a genuine balance between characters because otherwise people will always pick the class that's clearly better and smoother than anything else. Ninja confirms exactly that.

The cut to mob density pretty much kills it for me. It's fun to plow through a hundred mobs per second, it's not to stand a few seconds longer (which is what making rares 'harder and more meaningful' boils down to) on a rare and then move between a vast space of emptiness while scouting the map to find that last stupid rare.
I'll just throw out my personal conspiracy theory: they didn't do it because of Vision™ gameplay but because they can't fix the permanent cogwheel loadscreens that permanently come and delete your overlay map. Then again I'm still in awe that they managed to port this cancer down to poe1. Ingenious move, Jonathan.


As of right now the direction of the game will in my opinion make it a good lore entry but will fall flat on player retention after 1.0. The problem doesn't stem from missing endgame content. That problem comes from the endgame being tedious and boring.

Cheers lads, I hope you genuinely have fun with the league, but for me personally this ain't it.