I’m not playing meta builds, only homebrew stuff or even a meme junk 
.
I’m not aiming to beat ubercrapbalancerroth because I do respect my time.
Normal Abby as a min bar for me for S3 to call my build OK, c1000 maps - good, worthy ones, shot map/boss showcase n post vid on YT. Done. Next
Ubby is a real balance-issues-amplifier that forces players to screw most of possible builds, skills etc . (and OP relic makes situation even worse)
3 Likes
You brought it up in the OP, I just responded
Here it is again since you forgot
Those #s show thousands of Uber Aberoth kills across all masteries, 5/6 months ago. It’s safe to assume that the #s have increased. Nobody can refute that the #s are now larger.
Depends how you want to define “viable” but all dictionary definitions of the word viable includes terms such as ‘able’ / ‘capable’ / ‘can’ so I would say that if Blade Dancer is capable of killing Uber Aberoth, than it is viable by definition.
I guess Mike was wrong on discord then. Thanks for pointing that out.
If you’re a super-duper-ultra-skilled player you can kill Uby with the basic attack and no mastery selected. Does that mean that it’s viable? Or does it mean that only super-skilled people will be able to?
For a build to be viable it means that your average joe can pick up that build and have a shot at it. If it’s limited only to super-skilled individuals, then it’s not viable. Because it’s limited.
2 Likes
And nonetheless OP’s statement holds true.
You think there’s a apple and oranges comparison… but it’s not.
Obviously the numbers are now higher. Much like the number of people being hit by lightning twice only rises as time passes… kinda hard to reverse that 
By your definition it’s viable to call having a force of 10G applied to you not being in mortal danger. Why? Because someone was able to not die while it happened!
Nonetheless it would be utterly moronic to say.
So please step away from the moronic arguments and return from fantasy land to reality a bit more. We all use hyperbole at times or overly extreme examples… but there’s a clear-cut limit and your argumentation line is not over the line but outside the continent by now.
It’s not even worth to get further into that it’s such a nonsensical argument, so I won’t get further into it with answers to that specific line of discussion here. It’s too far out for even me to write about in more detail.
Come on… you’re not a clown normally, so don’t try to become one.
So, a build is only viable if it turns the pinnacle content into easy mode?
Come on, you’re not a clown, usually.
That’s not viable, that’s broken for the current challenge level.
Fighting a pinnacle boss should require more than average skill. Players should bleed until they figure out how to beat this, with those achieving that having earned serious bragging rights.
1 Like
If it’s realistically achievable by a mediocre skilled player. Which is above an average joe.
Why this exact (with the vague data we have for actual existing skill overall) description of the overall skill level? Because that*s what the game’s target audience is.
Viable in D4 is different from viable in PoE is different from viable in TL:I and is different from viable in LE.
Nobody talks about ‘easy mode’ here. The talk is about appropriate difficulty for the target audience.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Uberroth currently is the hardest existing boss for all live-service diablo-clones on the market and that’s far outside the scope of the target-audience.
Simple as that.
1 Like
You think that a below average player is an above average player. That’s some mental gymnastics there.
Yeah, but using world killing levels of hyperbole doesn’t help communicate what you actually think.
1 Like
Hundreds of hours and multiple set builds are what the current player pool is at, I guess, so i guess we have very few average joes on Last Epoch.
Being EASY and being POSSIBLE (as in viable) are two different things.
Also yeah, if this is it:
then just lets get 300 corruption, kill Aberroth with just randomely put together builds and call it a day. Because the next one, we will just swap game then.
I mean, there is literally nothing else to do between Aberroth and Uby
2 Likes
No. But a build is viable if an average player has a shot with it. If only a very skilled player does, then it’s not viable.
Like I said, if you have an extremely skillful player kill Uby with just the base attack and no mastery, does that mean it’s viable, even if no one else in the world can do it?
2 Likes
What?
How do you come to that solution?
What comments or metrics are you going by here?
I don’t quite get where you’re coming from or what you wanna say plainly spoken.
Yeah, that’s fair, absolutely so!
But come on… the base premise is so out of the world that talking in a calm manner about it is really hard here.
It’s beyond baffling.
That’s what I did, and that’s why I only returned very shortly (5 hours) to 1.3
I imagine if this trend goes on my play-time in 1.4 will be even less.
The core gameplay of LE is just atrocious on a higher end. Currently the gameplay of D4 is even superior… and I absolutely detest D4 because of the marketing strats used there and the sub-par results given the sheer amount of money thrown at it.
Also better: Grim Dawn, Chronicon, PoE, PoE 2 even! (and that’s a hard sale for the end-game still. It gets vastly better every update though at least.), TL:I, Dungeon Siege 1, Sacred 2, D2… I don’t know about D3, only play-tested it.
But it’s really hard to find a inferior end-game design then what the overall state of LE provides currently. Many of those games do not ‘speak’ to one personally because they target a different audience… but in the regard to the audience they’re simply better designed.
LE is a complete failure in terms of end-game design related to their target audience.
Doesn’t mean people can’t enjoy it.
By the definition given? Yes!
That’s why I made the Counterstrike world championship example and the 10G example. Because indeed the argument would cause the answer to be ‘yes’.
And that is a whole other problem, yes. I absolutely wish there was more in between.
1 Like
Which is what i fear is gonna happen more and more as players burn out in the endgame.
This is sad, as I personally think the base design is pretty great and there is a lot of potential to make it more intriguing and more satisfying… Which is also why I bothered writing this post at all. I just hope, despite this one probably being the 1000th complain they read, EHG understands where exactly, in the progression, we get frustrated, at least in my opinion.
1 Like
I 100% agree with that!
The base game premise and ideas are fantastic, top-notch even.
It’s a little bit above ‘Starfield’ for ideas… Bethesda had top-notch ideas there too! Several worlds. Generated random content outside of the hand-tailored one. Starship design changing performance of it and functionality, housing, base-building.
And then all those mechanics? Without failure all extremely shallow and unpolished + tons of issues on top.
Core great.
Execution slob sadly.
And well… we can only hope they start to actually listen. EHG drove their game personally into the wall. They had all the feedback needed for success, from the changes needed to core systems in their game to the monetization aspects like what is expected from their MTX and the supporter packs being ‘odd’ from the get-go.
Nothing was done, they listened simply to the wrong people… or the wrong people are at the helm making the decisions. Whatever it is… it is a problem.
1 Like
I just used your comments, that I quoted:
You said a mediocre skilled player is above an average joe.
Yes, because a ‘skilled’ player is clearly above a ‘average’ player by design.
So if a ‘mediocre skilled’ player, hence in the middle-line of the upper area of players (average = 50%. Skilled >50%) then we can surmise that a ‘mediocre skilled’ player would be somwhere around the 25%+ of the playerbase. ‘Slightly skilled’ would be a player beating top-end content in D4 for example, hence roughly at the top 40%. ‘Highly skilled’ a HC player doing decently in PoE, around the top 10% of players.
For overall comparisons.
And the skill level here is picked by similar play-times. So someone which plays 100 hours is expected to be in the range of players with that skill after playing 100 hours. Not at the same level as a player with 500 hours experience or 2000 hours experience. Time matters, experience matters. We cannot compare properly if we don’t use some form of measurement which is half-way reliable.
No, you didn’t say they were a skilled player, you said they were a mediocre skilled player. That changes the “skill” from a good thing into a bad thing, in English. An average player is averagely skilled, by definition.
This isn’t “lower end of an upper bracket” of player skill.
Maybe in German that’s how you’d take the translation to mean, but not in English. Sorry.
Nono… not a ‘mediocre’ skilled person. A ‘mediocre skilled’ person.
Big difference.
My mistake for not showcasing it better though.
1 Like
I know that’s what you mean, but that’s not what you said in English. Mediocre is a modifier to the thing (player skill). A prefix, if you will.