Crafting Impressions and Feedback

Feedback and Suggestions
1

I have only just returned to the game as of v0.8.4e and played for roughly six hours to get a feel for the new crafting system. Upon launch I cleared my stash of unique items without Legendary Potential and Exalted items that had such low Forging Potential that they could not be redeemed (and believe me, I tried).

My highest level character was level 77 when I started, working through level 80 monoliths. I eventually got some keys and ran the Temporal Sanctum dungeon twice (once at the first tier, once at the second).

In my six hours of gameplay I managed to collect:

  • Sanctum Key: 7
  • Unique gear: 20 (six with LP=1, one with LP=2)

In my initial review of the game I had praised the crafting system for respecting the players time invested and the effort put towards the item - that is to say, an individual feels satisfied using the system and agrees with the rate of time versus the rate of rewards. Games such as Path of Exile do not respect the players time and require a large investment for a minor reward.

As an individual who does not often have a lot of time to play Last Epoch because of work, school, and family, I always appreciated how it felt like I was making progress each time I got to play. While I may be in the minority and fall outside of the target demographic, I would like to see EHG continue with this structure.

Crafting, moving forward, should be designed in a way that enables players to recycle items and retain the value of their time invested. Despite finding twenty unique items in my six hour run, only one of them was something that I would use for a build across my three characters - if I ever came across a unique that I cared about building for, I would want a way to ensure that it could be preserved.

Legendary Items Should Retain Legendary Potential

Once a Legendary item has been crafted, it should retain its original Legendary Potential so that it can be re-rolled by running the dungeon again and placing it into the eternity cache:

  • A legendary item could be used for either the unique slot (retaining the unique items traits) or the Exalted slot (considering the added affixes from the Exalted item).

When a player finally finds the unique they have been hunting, it would be discouraging knowing that it could not be changed in the future and the individual would have to once again grind for the chance to get that item.

Unique Items Should Be Guaranteed Legendary Potential

I have seen this specific idea voiced in the forums on several occasions since v0.8.4 came out and I agree. Players should be adequately rewarded for their time, especially considering that there are so many layers of RNG:

  • The unique items being chased are NOT guaranteed to drop.
  • The unique item has a higher chance of rolling with less Legendary Potential.
  • The unique affixes and implicits cannot be modified through crafting, meaning the player can receive a low end roll.

Unique items - and to a further extent, Set items - should each start with at least one Legendary Potential. Respect the players time - as it stands, unique items without potential are hardly ever worth keeping.

Exalted Affix Requirement Should Scale With Legendary Potential

Currently, a player is required to have a Unique with at least one Legendary Potential and an Exalted item with a minimum of four affixes (the max craftable outside of the Glyph of Despair, which cannot be added). The affix requirements should be brought into line with the Legendary Potential:

  • LP=1 requires an Exalted item with at least one affix.
  • LP=2 requires an Exalted item with at least two affixes.
  • LP=3 requires an Exalted item with at least three affixes.
  • LP=4 requires an Exalted item with all four crafted affixes.

This change would enable more control when combining items with lower Legendary Potential, allowing for greater player satisfaction. Furthermore, this system would directly benefit the ability to recycle unwanted Legendary items (as described above).

In conclusion, I actually find the new crafting system to be just as intuitive as the previous one with more unique ways to interact with late-game drops.

I still strongly believe that the Forging Potential could still be tweaked across several systems - for example, the Rune of Removal should not use as much, if any, Forging Potential.

I plan on doing another longer run over the holidays to collect more data, but I imagine that my general thoughts will stay the same.

Edit;
One thing that I would like to point out is the fact that the Gambler seems entirely pointless now - the likelihood of getting a usable base item to craft with is astronomically unlikely. This does need to be addressed.

TLDR;

Summary
  • Legendary items should keep their Legendary Potential in order to be recycled back through the Eternity Cache system.
  • Unique items should be guaranteed at least one Legendary Potential
  • The Exalted affix requirement should be equal to or greater than the Legendary Potential of the item (LP=1 requires 1+ affix on Exalted item, LP=2 requires 2+ affixes, etc.)
2 Likes
2

I really like the idea for Legendary items to keep their LP to be used again. You could have the item forever, slowly trying to get to 4 affixes, it would make the item older and more “Legendary” in the long run.

I don’t agree that all unique items should have at least one Legendary Potential. The unique itself is often build-defining or filling a defensive gap etc. and the LP chance is an extra bonus.

1 Like
3

I had meant that the Legendary would re-roll the affixes from the Exalted. Meaning that if you used a LP=2 Unique, the Legendary would have LP=2 and would inherit two new affixes from an Exalted item.

I don’t know if there has been a misunderstanding, but I had not meant for it to be cumulative.

I disagree, but that may just be caused by the fact that none of the unique items that I have seen have been overly useful for my builds or often get replaced after leveling.

While I do understand that a unique could be build defining, I don’t think that is a reason to maintain a higher drop rate for LP=0. LP=1 already isn’t very impressive. I believe it would be best to instead change Legendary Potential to be guaranteed.

I suppose once trading gets introduced, the disparity between desired unique items will allow people to more frequently obtain the unique items that they “need”.

4

I midly agree with this. For one part, trying to get one Unique and seeing that it finally drops with 0 LP it could make it very annoying for people. But I tend to look things in other way. You suggest that every Unique should have at least 1 LP. My feeling about this is that would work better if every Unique drop with 0 LP and we can have another way to add LP to them but with the same numbers as drop, being easy to add 1 LP, a bit difficult to get 2 LP, very very hard to get 3 LP and almost impossible to get 4 LP. How make this? I don’t know exactly but my first though would be a hard material to get from level +90 and when you get it, it will randomly add LP 1 to 4 (but will most likely you get LP1 and maybe 2) to the Unique when you apply it. The RNG is in get the Unique first, then you get this hard material so you can add LP, then, you can upgrade it to a Legendary with an Exalted item.

Considering what I suggest above, the Legendary items would be a final step, so they can’t be crafted further more. You will need to get the Unique item again, then the material to add LP and try again beating Julra.

I can’t agree or disagree with this but as my POV it’s already fine the way it is. If for some reason -supposing- my idea were implemented, maybe would be more fair considering you have to get specific things (the Unique, the material to add LP, the Exalted with the affixes you want) and then beat “hard” content in order to have a Legendary.

But all I say depend of what I suggest.
Edit: Fixing my text

5

This would be another suitable alternative to the current system.

1 Like
6

As mentioned, I did another run (roughly seven plus hours) to get more information. In that time I did a great deal of crafting and found:

  • Sanctum Key: 5
  • Unique gear: 28 (eight with LP=1, three with LP=2)

Additionally, I ran the Temporal Sanctum twice more.

My opinion remains largely the same, however, I would like to reiterate that I believe runes should NOT use Forging Potential - it feels terrible to use Rune of Removal and have the crafting potential consumed.

While I am currently frustrated with the majority of unique items having LP=0, I know that a lot of these gripes will be alleviated once player trading has been introduced to the game - allowing players to obtain build-specific unique items at a much better rate.

2 Likes
7

100% agree. Now that Chaos/Discovery exist it feels borderline stupid to ever use Removal.

So many uniques were already GREAT to begin with, it would be ridiculous to make EVERY unique have legendary potential. The whole point of Legendary items was long-term sustainability for the game. They are chase items. There are certain uniques you can ONLY get from Empowered Monolith bosses that take hours and hours just to get 1, and as a result they’re pretty damn good items as-is. Getting one with even 1LP would be incredible since you can potentially slap another T6 affix onto an already great item.

Exalted Affix Requirement Should Scale With Legendary Potential

99% also agree, and it could potentially give some use to the aforementioned Rune of Removal, but they would have a major balance problem since you could guaranteed slam big/desirable affixes like +3 skill levels or T6 move speed onto already amazing Uniques that just happen to drop with 1 LP (the most common amount of LP by like an order of magnitude). I would think uniques with LP as a whole would have to get much more rare for that to work balance-wise.

(With the current system you only have a 1/4 chance of slamming T5 move speed onto a 1LP pair of boots. With your proposal you could potentially get a guaranteed T5/6 move speed roll on any 1-2LP set of boots, which they definitely don’t want.)

But with the current system, say you had an Exalted item with 3 affixes, and a Unique with 2 LP:

You would need to craft an additional affix onto the exalted item, and then you only have a 50/50 shot at sealing on the affixes you actually want.

With your proposal, you could not craft the 4th affix, and have a 66% chance of sealing on the affix you want, or get creative and use rune crafting on the Exalted item to try and end up with just 2 affixes you want (and you could even make use of Forging Potential by potentially doing multiple add/remove/chaos til you get the perfect exalted item) and then have a 100% chance of making the exact Legendary you want from there.

So it moves basically all of the RNG to crafting the exalted item, instead of having 2 huge RNG rolls, 1 for crafting the exalt, and 1 more for slamming it on the unique.

1 Like
8

Rune of removal gives you all the shards from the affix that it removes rather than an RNG amount that you get from a rune of shattering.

2 Likes
9

Careful with any assumptions about trading - it is unlikely to be a free , trade with anyone system… See various threads: Search results for 'Trade' - Last Epoch Forums

10

I think the most important word here is “potentially”.

Yes, there are certain unique items that could potentially be made stronger, sure, but there are many layers of the game that an individual must wade through to get to that potential - meaning that in the end, the effort is rewarded.

I would argue that unique items are meant to fill niche roles and don’t only serve to dictate very specific builds. The Legendary system works to incorporate unique items into builds that wouldn’t otherwise utilize them by offering the ability to fuse additional, relevant affixes onto them.

Legendary Potential offers a chance at greatness - I think it is important to remember that “chances” and “potential” are still subject to fate; being capable of greatness is not the same as being great.

11

What does this have to do with anything that is being discussed?

Rune of Removal does not feel good to use. It costs Forging Potential and has the chance to remove the affix that you want.

It is barely a positive that it returns affix shards equal to the tier - even when I have tried to use it on throw-away items with affixes that I want, it never felt good to use. I have resorted to simply using Rune of Shattering.

If Rune of Removal wasn’t random, it might be more worthwhile, but until then… it needs some help.

1 Like
12

Where are you pulling this speculation from? The early Dev Blog regarding the Bazaar makes it pretty clear that you’ll be able to list almost anything except for Legendary items. Furthermore, trade will be made conditionally free among your friends list.

Do you have a more definite source? Please share.

13

You said Runes shouldn’t spend FP, someone said they’re borderline stupid now with Chaos. Llama corrected that they return all of the shards of the removed affix, which they didn’t do previously and Shattering doesn’t either, so it’s a new mechanic in the crafting system.

Which is why it’s so good for getting the affixes you want to turn into shards.

It’s a huge positive. I start with Removal and Hope on any item that has shards I really want (i.e. +skill shards). I usually get all of the shards on the item because of it. If I do happen to fail to remove the right affix, I then shatter. I get way more of the shards I want this way than by just using shattering.

14

The information is basically all over the place right now and the plans for the system are likely evolving. Originally, the proposed system was definitely going to have significant restrictions, although it wasn’t completely clear what those restrictions would be. The multiplayer FAQ provides a baseline for what has been an ongoing discussion through multiple mediums about how the trade system will work:

" 1. What will the trade system be like?
Our current plans regarding the trade system are still a work in progress and will require scale testing, but are centralized around having an area for players to congregate called The Bazaar. In the Bazaar you can visit other player’s shops and purchase items for in-game gold. The player shops that appear are random so the act of finding gear that you are interested in feels like browsing an active bazaar instead of finding players on third party websites to trade with directly. We want the main item hunt to remain outside of trade so making this an enjoyable experience but not the clear best way to obtain better items is our goal. Players in a party will also be able to gift items to each other, as long as the item dropped after both players joined the party."

1 Like
15

I was replying to a comment that said the rune of removal felt stupid to use, I thought that was fairly obvious given I quoted the comment in question.

Its almost as if there’s a risk to offset the new reward that it has.

It’s a significant improvement, if you don’t want to accept that, that’s entirely your prerogative. But it’s an objective fact that it can return significantly more shards than shattering does when it removes the affix you want it to remove.

Just because you don’t like it does not make it bad. It just means you don’t like it, which is OK.

From the more recent dev blogs they released about trading/the bazaar. Its going to be more akin to a car boot sale where the stalls you see are random (& you won’t be able to “force” a specific one to appear) and you will only be able to do some form of p2p trade for a specific item if both people were in the same party when the item dropped.

16

Everything you and @Llama8 have said proves the divide between players.

I understand that there is potential to get more affix shards, but outside of breaking down items it is rarely worth the risk.

I, and those who agree with me, are not asking to remove the Rune of Removal from the game, we are simply requesting that it does not consume Forging Potential.

Keep on using it the way you have - this change will not interrupt your regular activities.

Right. This is my point. @vapourfire mentioned that we should be careful regarding our assumptions on trading - yet, there is not enough information available to warrant this being relevant to the certain situation.

1 Like
17

I made no statement towards the cost of Runes, only the mechanical value of using Removals. There were several statements suggesting that Removals weren’t a valuable item, but they weren’t considering the value of the new mechanic.

It seems to me like less information would suggest being more careful about making assumptions about how the system works, but like you said, this is getting pretty far off track from your original topic.

18

What isn’t so obvious is why you said it. It remains irrelevant to the discussion.

Rune of Removal returns affixes - we know that, that is not what we are talking about. Just because an item does something doesn’t prevent what it does from feeling bad or “stupid”.

I have never said that the Rune of Removal doesn’t serve a purpose - please do not belligerently misrepresent my original opinion when I have clearly voiced what my concerns are: it feels wrong that the Rune of Removal consumes Forging Potential.

I am not, and never have been, saying that you or @McFluffin are wrong for using and enjoying the Rune of Removal - I am offering feedback to make it a more enjoyable crafting process for everyone involved. Yes, they offer a unique mechanic. Yes, this mechanic can be useful. Neither of you can disagree that removing the Forging Potential cost would be a negative change - so there is no reason to derail the post so aggressively.

1 Like
19

I’m not sure why you keep saying Llama and I are derailing the conversation. We’re replying to previous statements you and others have made. On the topic of Rune of Removal, your thread is literally titled “Crafting Impressions and Feedback”. I don’t see how adding information on the mechanical function of Rune of Removal is somehow derailing your original topic, when it’s supposed to be about crafting and we’re only continuing topics previously brought up by you and others.

Is the problem that we’re not just straight up agreeing with you?

2 Likes
20

{snip}
Since you don’t appear to get who I was reply to or why, I don’t think there’s much point in me belabouring the point so I won’t post what I was going to but it was amusing, not to mention

Yes, I’m definitely feeling that at the moment.

I wasn’t replying to you, I was replying to Joewe. I thought that was clear from the quote I replied to.

Have fun with the remaining conversation…