Character appearance shouldn't dictate class!

General
41

Here you have your distorting showcased from your side then:

Your argument is: ‘Nobody said we should do it.’ Right? Unless you wanna deny that as well, here, your quote, just a reminder:

So here’s where that notion happened:

Smallest problem.
It being a problem has hence been addressed.

This means ‘for the future yes, low priority though’.

So ‘let’s do it!’ is provided.

Example 2. Understanding of why it didn’t happen, and further on even a warning to ensure they don’t cause themselves a overly massive workload for when they wanna do it.
Which is a sensible approach!

Example 3. Agreement that it’ll be a thing that might happen in the future. Not against it now, right? So a ‘let’s do it!’ when it’s the right time again.

Example 4. Active agreement even! Yeah, it should be done! Not damn now though! once more. So a ‘let’s do it!’ for once more ‘when the time is right’.

Example 5. My own. Another ‘Yeah, let’s do it!’ with the notion of ‘not now though!’.

And that’s ALL the posters in this thread actually. Not a single one talked against it being done but not a single person agrees with it being done now.
So your only hangup is ‘You don’t agree to it being done now!’ rather then ‘You don’t agree to it being done at all!’.

Which yes. Does exactly what I mentioned.
So kindly… leave it be. Imagine here something more direct standing instead… you get the gist. How you scream into the room so the echo tends to come back.

3 Likes
42

You’re unable to provide a quote without adding interpretation, aren’t you?

43

An exact quote? Can you provide an instance of an exact quote where EHG, or anyone, said they would never do it?

Or was this ‘interpretation?’

3 Likes
44

But is it really?
I don’t consider it a problem, just put it that way because that’s how OP sees it.

I’m also not against this happening, just very convinced that this alone is not what’s going to bring more people to the game, since majority of people really seem to not care much about how their character looks in a game like this.
Like… there’s no way someone completely disliked the game only because the character models are static, but then suddenly loved it when char customization gets added.

1 Like
45

Fair, let’s say ‘there’s more people wanting or not minding it to happen then those which would be against it… visibly at least and for the moment’. So overall a good change likely.

Not per-se a problem, just a improvement :slight_smile:

1 Like
46

I don’t think anyone would ever be against this.

Just like no one would ever be against creating better graphics. Or adding pvp. Or many other things.
At most people might be indifferent to it in general terms.

The only thing people might ever have against any of these is, like you mentioned, “not now”. There are more important things to add that are important to players of the genre.

I feel like all the people that cry out and demand things like gendered classes or character customization aren’t really fans of the genre itself, or were just introduced to it recently.
It’s fine to want it and think it would be nice to have. It’s something else to go to the extreme of requiring it to exist to enjoy the game.

2 Likes
47

Oh there would be people against it! When they made mastery respeccable, there where weirdly many people that cried because being able to respec your mastery would “destroy their (roleplay) vision for their character”

1 Like
48

Your argument doesn’t make sense. Because it would actually be the opposite. If someone cares about the roleplay vision for their character, then more customization options is better. If they don’t care about it, then they also don’t care about the options.
So no, no one would be against it.

What you’re talking about is a completely opposite issue, since it’s one that actually removes permanence from the game.
Honestly, it just sounds like you’re salty that some people don’t want mastery respec.

2 Likes
49

I’d bet everyone who complained about this are not actively using the respect system.

On the other hand, we’ve seen loads of people that were first happy about this, then got frustrated when they learned they’re unable to keep respeccing forever, and are now requesting even more.

50

I meant it more in the sense that for every feature you will find people that are vehemently against it. I just chose the respec feature because it’s recent and because I don’t understand that argument in particular.
If you have a mechanical problem with it, for example making it more advantageous to level with one mastery and then switch, that I can understand, but when the problem is only roleplay, then just don’t use it.

1 Like
51

Yes, but that isn’t true.
If they add a colourblind option to the accessibility, no one will be against it.
If they add cursor customization, no one will be against it (we can clearly see this because when PoE did it, not one person complained).
If they add a pvp zone, no one will be against it.

People might be against adding it at that point, considering other things are more important (as is the case of this thread), but no one is actually against it being added to the game.

So there are many options that have no influence on the gameplay itself that can be added and no one will bat an eye.

Not going to rehash this again, but I’ll just say that it has nothing to do with roleplay itself, it has to do with making decisions that are actually important and have meaning because they’re permanent.
It’s like adding an option to point and click games like Myst or Monkey Island where you can simply skip puzzles.

But this is not relevant for this topic, and there are dozens of threads about this with all the arguments for both sides rehashed again and again, so let’s just drop that.

52

I’m a casual gamer, and I changed my build a lot before I understood how everything worked. If I hadn’t, I might have rage quit and left a bad review, blaming my broken builds early in the game on a badly balanced game (I know, we casual gamers are stupid)
So respeccing saved me a lot of time and effort.

53

Yes, and since that’s already extremely undermined it doesn’t matter much anymore. So that argument got weaker not stronger.

The stronger argument against mastery respec was that the current gameplay content and replay value doesn’t allow implementing this function without repercussions for long-term players, hence damaging the product until the long-term viability for playing is properly sustained. But EHG did it anyway… so their problem, just means short-term gains and long-term losses, they picked, they get the results simply.

I think it was meant as the ‘immersion’ aspect, which is influenced by weight of decisions. Value comes from limitations.

So yes, the permanence aspect you’re talking about.

And we see… zero in this case :stuck_out_tongue:

No, that comment isn’t true. And even if people are against it it’s about the quantity of those against it as well as the reasons provided…

A high quantity against it can be ignored if the reason is one which has miniscule impact.
A low quantity of people can be heeded if the reason is one which has major impact.

Did you change your mastery as well, or only the build?
If you changed the mastery then yes, it applies. If not, then no… it doesn’t apply.

Respec inside a class is fine if the proper limitations are given (too many early, too little late-game currently). Respec between masteries is also fine if the play-time provided by the game is respectively large enough to allow it. It’s a live-service game after all and that - sadly - has to be always taken into consideration.

54

I didn’t change masteries - I blindly picked one, and it was powerful enough. But I respecced passives a lot, mostly to fit my gear, until mid-game when I ripped bosses apart in less than a minute with a finely tuned build. At that point, I stopped caring about gear, passives, masteries, drops, etc.

edit: no, actually, I did. I picked one mastery, then changed it to another - only to realize the initial choice was better, so I changed it back.

55

That & you can’t see the character’s face after the first few minutes so why bother adding all the character customisation options such as nipple piercings, Prince Alberts, etc if you can’t see them. It works in D4 because the videos use the character model.

If you could see the piercings or tattoos, or the massive belly jiggling around in combat (or in cutscenes) then yes, it might be worth it, but you can’t.

No, he’s just explaining it because apparently you didn’t understand the first time, or you skimmed over them (which nobody ever does :innocent:).

It’s highly appealing to you but not everybody else. Many people (that Kulze quoted) would like it but it’s much lower down on the priority list.

1 Like
56

Skimming over my posts? I see no reason why anyone would ever do that, I’m shocked! :stuck_out_tongue:

57

I was born in hellfire with hammer in my hands. Anvil was my throne and now I am nearly dead, consumed by endless void… Hello, my dear void knight brothers! This is new beginning, just wait for my revenge.

Dunno how it doesn’t fit role playing, thats all depends on you. I don’t see any problems with respec masteries. With that I don’t need to spend another few hours to levelup my alts. It’s very good option for beginners. Any game that doesn’t have that option is outdated. Many players doesn’t have much time to play like 10h per day, but they want to test another build. Why not?

58

For the same reason as any accessibility mechanic that’s not catered to allowing people with a disability to play the game.

It removes barriers for those which do have those example 10 hours.
What audience does a specific game cater towards? That’s how it’s got to be designed.

So, who does LE cater towards? With the words of EHG on the Steam page ‘veterans and newcomers alike’… which translated means ‘we cater to nobody’ in reality sadly. Sounds nice, works like crap. Only a distinct few games ever managed to do that and only those only did partially so.

Well then… how are the design-decisions in the game handled? Mid-tier loot Hack’N’Slash players. Not utter beginners (D3, Chronicon) and not in-depth players (PoE 1, PoE2) either. It’s positioned roughly like Torchlight Infinite. Not as complex, not as simple.

So then following that what does the expected play-time of that target audience look like?
Longer then D3, less then PoE as well. Middle ground is to be expected for the core target audience based on design. What EHG wants to cater to and what they did cater to since years are two different things, not managing to cater to those they actually wanna cater to is their failing. Changing it though is a death-sentence for every game after being established, alienates all existing customers and barely ever goes well.

So then what’s the distinct play-time expectation in numbers? D3 it was 50-60 hours for a invested player. PoE it’s 200+ hours. Mind you, per league, hence all 3-4 months. So LE being the middle ground we can expect anything from 100-150 hours.

So this leaves us with the ultimate question related to the ‘Why not?’: Does the game actually provide respective amount of replay value to uphold this with a cycle of ‘1 played, 1 off’ league/season/cycle?

The answer is: No, it does not.
Which is a design shortcoming from EHG for the moment.
Mastery respec reduces this replay-timeframe substantially. It’s a viable implementation when the expected play-time comes close to the 150 hours, it’s a detrimental implementation when the play-time is below 100 hours.
The current play-time of LE is at best 50 hours, the content simply doesn’t allow much more unless you go into the extreme min-max areas which always are highly repetitive (and leads to 500+ hours playtime comparatively for PoE 1 as example). They are to be excempt from the positioning. Tourist players simply ‘looking in and leaving after’ are also to be excempt, they are not core target group.
So that means the play-time is potentially lowered since respec allows reduction of that and hence reducing long-term the returning playerbase as ‘they’ve seen everything already’. If Cycle 3 provides updates which aren’t utterly massive in content then we’ll see a drop overall in returning players. Cycle 4 will not rise unless the content becomes vastly bigger either… and so on. This will uphold until the design-position on the market and content-breadth are aligning with each other.

And mind you, the current issue is that already LE has below expected quantity of content… or better said perceived content. That’s to large degree design errors from EHG, which are understandable… but they need to work on that, until then people won’t stop saying ‘This game has not enough content!’ because they simply messed up giving it to the players in a viable long-term grinding-able basis which feels rewarding for the ‘mid-tier’ Hack’N’Slash player for years to come with the pace of development the studio can handle.

59

Some complicated stuff about game designs. Prefer arpg loot with mmorpg hybrid, but it doesn’t exist :laughing:

60

Here’s the summary:

I suggested a feature that would allow models to be used across different classes. For example, a Sentinel model casting fireballs or summoning skeletons while still wearing Sentinel gear (not a big deal for me at all!)

Some say this is the absolute lowest priority imaginable just because they don’t need it. But that doesn’t mean it actually is - it’s simply a difference in preference. Personally, I think fixing bugs and mechanics in a class I’ll never play is pointless. If I don’t like the model used for a specific class, I’ll never play it anyway.

And if the argument is that I’m the only one who wants this - I’m not. If it’s important to me, it’s likely important to many others too. Unless, of course, you all agree that I’m a truly unique, one-of-a-kind person in the whole universe - in which case, I’ll just take the compliment.