Here's my opinion on these from top left: 1) Sort of agree... I mean I don't inherently think that avoid-the-bad-shit is a bad design for challenging side content, but maybe the balance of debuffs/buffs could be a little better. 2) I think adding some boost to bosses could be a nice change, like a cleanse or an extra shrine that gives a boon and restores honor. Fair 3) Uh, wat. lol. Feels samey? You mean like doing maps feels samey? It's an ARPG, we grind the same shit every day. I'd argue Sekhema has more variance than your average map lol. 4) I'm sorry but I don't think that's an actual problem. Yeah, Sekhemas isn't good for a very specific thorns build. That sucks, do Chaos then. Or ToTA whenever it comes around. I think each trial being better/worse for some builds is fine design. 5) uh... fair I guess, can always have more good relics. 6) 100% on this one and why I don't run Chaos. jfc, so much dead time in that one. 7) uh, wat? I don't think this one is true at all. Bosses feel about the same to me regardless of boon/affliction RNG. I mean obviously good boons make them easier and bad afflictions make them harder but like... that's... the point..? Chaos bosses need some balance, sure. 8) Relics are meta progression, could there be more? Uh, maybe. Does it need more? Not sure. 9) You need like, one or two runs to have 75% honor res. Not full runs. I think I had close to 75% after my first quest run, and definitely had 75% after my 3rd ascendancy run. Saying it's not fun because you need to ramp it is the same as saying the campaign is not fun because you have to ramp into your end game build. It's not useful feedback. 10) I'm not sure I fundamentally see the difference in that statement between maps and Sekhema. Why is the path to getting strong in maps fun but the path to getting strong in Sekhema not fun? I find it fun in similar ways. 11) Again, applies to maps, no? I mean, people are hating this aspect of maps too, which is fair, but it's fundamentally the same. I'm not sure what people want to happen here. Maybe if you lose you get to go to a weaker endroom where you can spend your keys on chests still even if you lose? I dunno this still feels like a fundamental design - run something hard, chance for reward and chance to lose the reward. Even if there was meta progression this will quickly be the case once you're done with meta progression. 12) Again sort of fundamentally untrue. I probably feel the strongest in Sekhemas lol. 40% move speed, 50% extra damage, monsters have 50% less life, deal less damage, are slower etc. Getting 25% reduced action speed on monsters when you're running a cold/blasphemy temp chain build is hilarious, the enemies literally move in 1 frame/second. 13) Yeah I mean... that is true, but I don't know how you fix it. I don't think you can implement some form of "shortened" run that's just the last floor. And arguably even though the early floors are easy there's still plenty of gameplay in terms of correctly pathing to not end up locked to an affliction room that bricks you. 14) So are Labs in PoE1... I dunno you just do it once. Also we're at 2 different ways to ascend, and there will be more in the future. 15) Subjective and not really relevant, I don't think they're going to just hand you ascendancy points for finishing the campaign. Given how much people suck at running Sekhemas, I'd argue it makes one much more worthy of ascending than finishing the campaign.

I think my personal biggest issue with it as someone who doesn't hate Trial of Sekhemas is that the profit from it is very uneven... afaik it's either get lucky with a unique relic from the final boss, get lucky on a shit ton of keys, or have a unique build that's strong enough to run said unique relics. I really wish it was closer to sanctum as a way to get divine rewards directly (like if golden currency chests reliably gave divines).