Me too, it was like a selected class could try a selected class’s every available skill.
We had a all time high of 258k people at 1.0. Retaining 40% of that amount at 1.1 would’ve been the minimum acceptable amount to sustain the level of engagement, which was 71k though, hence below 30%… still a fine amount though!
The next ‘major’ patch was the reset of 1.1 with the event, QoL and a new Event after all, but that only brought in 14k people, that’s slightly below 6% retention from the initial hype.
The hype around the game showcased that there’s a demand on the market for a game which provides in-depth mechanics but is not D4 or PoE, Last Epoch couldn’t provide at the time, and won’t be for a while either, but it can get there.
The release was too early by far, but depending on the reasoning a viable option. If there were monetary issues then… well… kudos for the move of EHG. If it was because they thought themselves ‘ready’ then that would be a major failing on their side.
That’s the situation about that there.
1.0 was the result of the hype generated pre-launch. As can be seen by the statistics in any game, half the people don’t even finish the campaign and would never have been expected to return, even if LE was the best game of all time. So if you want to use a baseline for returning players that would have to be 125k, not the 250k.
Either way, even with the full value, it’s still far from the 10% you mentioned.
That is not a major patch. That is the equivalent of PoE’s private leagues/events. Currently PoE has 2 private leagues running, which brought in… 20k new people. Which is below 10% retention from the peak of current league.
So what’s your point there?
1 Like
It really wasn’t a major patch, it was something to tide people over a little given the pushing back of 1.2.
1 Like
We get the option to choose Masteries relatively early in the game, when players are not really expected to have theorycrafted their entire build. Messing it up and picking the “wrong/not best” option at that moment in the game is something to be expected.
I suggest doing something similar to what DJSamhein suggested - not making a system in which changing Mastery is free and effortless, but rather a system in which it’s possible, but expensive (in time and/or effort).
So we would still encourage people to stick to a single Mastery, reinforcing their identities, but someone who feels strongly about changing it would have the option of doing so.
The Mastery system reminds me a lot of the Ascendancies in Path of Exile - and there players can change their Ascendancies, but it has a significant cost in Orbs of Regret (much higher than respeccing a common node in the skill tree) and players have to rerun the Labyrinth in order to do so.
2 Likes
Exactly, which was why I wrote ‘The hype showed that there’s demand for such a game, but LE couldn’t provide it’.
A hype is set by expectations, those show demand. Often - mostly - a product is not ‘to par’ with said expectations. But the overall notion I heard for now from streamers (mind you, small database, but influential one on the other hand) is ‘It was a fun experience’ but when asked if they would return it was a ‘Maybe when the game is more fleshed out’ commonly. So it showcases the core aspects of gameplay being good… the systems upholding it needing adjustments simply.
That’s actually wrong, you can expect a part of those to come back and either try again and end half-way through the campaign as before… or do it that time. The majority of them will leave though.
As much as longer playing people will only try it out once.
Which was why I said a 40% rate would be a viable and reasonable expectation for a high quality product.
Why?
Because as you said, people leave… but that would mean that not a single person is a newcomer in 1.1… which obviously isn’t the case, many people join a game over time, especially so if they missed out on a grand release date and hence using the next grand one to get into the gist of it.
That’s why I said it would be a healthy number. 30% is still a good number as well, as mentioned.
Those 2 are in connection with each other.
Yes, it is not a major patch. Albeit the expectation of the life-cycle of a life-service diablo-clone is established on the market via Path of Exile and Torchlight Infinite, which use the same rough timeline to provide large-scale new content.
Path of Exile showcased that a re-run is causing a massive falloff, which is something that’s expected, and I have said beforehand that it’ll happen.
With an established game like Path of Exile that instead wants to focus on the major and utterly massive hype of bringing out a second game while keeping their first one running as strong as it is going (200k players without the ‘release hype’ is a monolith beyond end after all) can absolutely and 100% afford to do such a thing. People will simply come back after the time has passed.
I don’t think that we’ll get beyond 50k at best (likely far less) for 1.2 though, not unless MG is majorly reworked rather then the current miniscule patchwork that has been done as well as end-game being furnished accordingly… which we’ll see how it turns out.
Last Epoch doesn’t have the massive long-term goodwill and established brand of ‘Yeah, they’re reliable enough to simply go back to what they’re doing after without a single issue’… which is why despite some people being annoyed the established process has changed… it won’t make a dent. LE? There is no established line since release… are the devs reliably putting out the expected amount of quality and content quantity in the expected timeframe of the genre given the state the competition is in? As a customer we don’t know. That’s a detriment, not something which EHG could actually afford… but has to since the plans went awry in several ways, which is after all why we have a re-run of a cycle so early on rather then new content which should’ve happened at around the same time.
That’s also a very good point. Albeit the pushback of when it happens is not the optimal solution.
What I would rather see is a showcase of a few potential core builds being presented to the player as they get the option to choose. Small inlaid videos you can watch which give you an example of how the gameplay of that mastery might look like. Because optimal/not optimal is not the foremost deciding point for the majority of players… style and feel is though, and that’s hard to see beforehand without examples.
This would allow the mastery class to stay unchanged and rigid… but alleviate the ‘I picked the wrong thing’ outcome as you make a more informed decision.
Most people wouldn’t pay much attention to it, though and would still complain. After all, they can already do that research themselves and don’t do it.
Also, some people ask for a mastery respec because mastery X sounds very appealing but when they actually play it it feels lackluster.
Personally, I think the best option would be my old suggestion of turning the arena dummy zone (or creating another zone for a similar purpose) a respec-free zone where you can respec everything, including mastery and class, and can assign points as though you were level 100.
It should be available even before creating a character, so that players can go there and freely experiment with everything until they are happy enough with whatever choice they want to make.
The biggest problem is: what could be the cost?
You can’t use gold, because that would mean MG gets to respec more than CoF.
You can’t use materials, because that would mean CoF gets to respec more than MG.
So that means that, in my mind, there are only 2 options:
-Create a non-tradable currency that gives you one mastery respec. Make it decently rare to get.
-Create a dungeon-like area that requires some time and effort to clear.
Both won’t really please the ones that want a mastery respec because both require you to still play and invest in your current mastery which they don’t like or want to play anymore.
But that is also the case for PoE, for example, where you’ll need to farm currency for it, which is a system that is often pointed out as an example by respec defenders.
Although, let’s be honest, ascendancy respec in PoE isn’t for beginners that chose their ascendancy wrong but for the more serious player to switch builds at endgame. They make a build to level up, they respec the build (not the ascendancy) to farm maps, when they have enough they then respec ascendancy to farm something else.
So, is there a solution? Not really. Not one that will please everyone.
You could just go with something like 5M gold and accept that MG will be able to respec more, or 10 runes of ascendance and accept that CoF will be able to respec more. Either way, you’ll probably lose players that will feel that it’s unfair.
You could go with a hard arena and accept that you will lose players that want to respec because they chose the wrong ascendancy and don’t like the character they’re currently playing, since it would force them to still play it and invest in order to beat the dungeon (even though you can still respec passives and skills and can make a twink build to beat it).
You could go with a long but easy questline, but forcing people to do boring things for this is a bad idea. No one will like that.
You could go with not allowing respec at all and knowing you’ll lose the players that want it.
You could go with allowing respec for a low cost, like what happens with passive respecs, and knowing you’ll lose the players that care about character identity.
Personally, the system I think could work best to please the most people would be one that is XP related. For example, you make the game know you want to respec your mastery. The game will then give you the respec once you get enough XPs for 2 levels. Meaning you have to level up twice (or get enough XPs for 2 level 100s if you’re already level 100).
This would make it so that if you actually made a mistake and want to switch it relatively early on, for example at level 50, it’s not too hard to switch. It will also allow you to experiment a bit during the campaign. And it wouldn’t be really exploitable since you still need to farm a bit before you can switch.
And if you want to switch at level 90 or something, that takes a longer investment, so you won’t be respecing just because you feel like it.
Although I’m personally in favour of doing the free respec zone available and block mastery as it is currently.
There’s a distinct difference between something being presented in-game and something being third-party or even on the official website. It has vastly higher value to be inside the game for the player, because it doesn’t pull you out of it, it’s available at the exact moment needed and it doesn’t demand any form of search for it, and be it only to go through 1-2 clicks on a website.
Which is the exact thing it could alleviate even. Not the power level of it… but the gameplay feel when properly presented. Given it is properly presented.
Yes, that is still one of the best options, absolutely, I agree 100% with that. Available from the start and the place to do theory-crafting.
You can’t assign one, it’s overall not a good solution.
Respec would be needed rather early on in the progression, which would lead to late-game characters having nigh endless respec ability, and that goes absolutely counter to the goal. The earlier the easier to respec, the later the harder is the supposed progression there, the more you play the more you ‘lock into an identity’, you basically ‘form it with playtime’.
So like my suggestion for XP costs, then? Early on it’s easier to level up, later on it takes a much longer time.
1 Like
Yes, exactly. For example a mastery respec needing… 2 levels worth of experience put into that. Which is always a bit of a effort… but the earlier you do it the easier it is. Absolute end-game? Good luck getting 2 times the amount for level 100 for example, but can be done and is feasable for long-term players.
I personally just think you should be forced to make some kinda choice. if you can change masteries, why not base classes? Why not just have the character be “a mysterious time entity who assumes the role of a hero in a specific time and place” infinite timelines means infinite classes and you can be anyone at any time.
I already really dislike the removal of the class based openings. I like the progression of characters and leveling them up and picking my class and then working with it and finding out “i kinda dont jive with this, lets try a different guy” respecing from level 100 is lame. Especially when you see people with characters “DarkVoidSlam” and they are playing some VK holy trail cause they respecced a echo slammer because why not? to them characters are just spreadsheets to remix and put into practice.
I think the current situation is fine. forcing a choice is good, im pretty tired of games just letting players do whatever they want 24/7. Having limitations and restrictions forces you to reconsider and think about what you are doing.
Dwarven realms is a great example as pointed out earlier, you are free to do whatever you want, but resources are somewhat rare, and time to get them is limited. completely redoing your build is not impossible, but heavily punished in the minmax sense. it works well because people shooting for the highest content/end game need to buckle down and make sure they know what they want and stick to it. And casuals who are never gonna go there anyways can waste resources and fuck around if they so desire.
3 Likes
100% agree with this.
Mastery respec shouldnt be as easy to do as passives and skills are.
Someway to work towards a mastery respec would help with character identity still ramaining a thing as well as allowing players to do so if theh so wish.
Perhaps even a d2 style respec might work maybe give 1 maybe 2 at said points in the game like a side quest to earn it. After these 1 or 2 preferably 1. There can be some sort of crafting recipe u can do to say create an orb of mastery change
Just a thought
2 Likes
From my experience this is a very polarizing issue and a lot of people are on complete opposite sides of the spectrum. And it is very rare that people from one side of the spectrum can see any downsides from their perspective. Even more rare people can come up with solutions to mitigate the negatives of such a feature.
Here are a couple of things I could think of.
Benefits:
- Players that realize they don’t like the theme or playstyle could change it without the need of creating a new character
- Players with little available playtime could still invest all their time into one character and could still tinker around with multiple masteries
- Might stop players from quitting the game, because they donvt need to create a new character if they want to test another mastery
Issues:
- Less Character identity. Character will feel like a empty shell that can be whatever you want.
- Adding this will move the goalposts for the next requests. (base class change, make skills not mastery exclusive, skills not losing progress when respected etc.)
- No more “hard decisions”. This already is the only “permanent” decision you ever have to make in LE, removing that will leave us with no permanent meaningful decisions.
- it massively changes what “kind” of game LE is and how it is received
As mentioned above, I think a lot of people from one side of the spectrum can’t or will not see the “downsides” on the other end of the spectrum.
So having a discussion about this usually ends in people denying other people’s concerns.
At the end of the day this is not a community decision, but a decision from the devs, what kind of game they want to create and maintain.
I personally think that one of LE’s strongest selling points is how good the presentation and theme of the Masteries are and that the inability to Respec them underlines that. For me personally a major positive would turn into a major negative when a mastery Respec would be implemented.
4 Likes
Critically, changing Last Epoch to be like best arpg games of all time and changing Last Epoch to be better than best arpg games of all time are supreme ideas, inevitably.
Benefits:
- Players that realize they don’t like the theme or playstyle could change it without the need of creating a new character
- Players with little available playtime could still invest all their time into one character and could still tinker around with multiple masteries
- Might stop players from quitting the game, because they donvt need to create a new character if they want to test another mastery —————————————————————Those benefits are completely true and right. Last Epoch is completely needing mastery respeccings, inevitably, presently.
Based on your reply to me and Llama you truly seem to only see it from one perspective, ignoring (or at least not commenting on all the mentioned downsides).
Whether you agree or not, adding a mastery Respec is not making Last Epoch an objectively better game.
It does not “need” it, only because you think it makes it better.
I highly doubt it. It might cause the player retention to increase a little big, but I don’t think that having a mastery Respec is something that brings in significantly more new customers.
2 Likes
However, the post is carefully my final judgement for better Last Epoch.
And yet they also have downsides which you either don’t want to see or wish to ignore.
Also, what if the devs don’t want to add a particular feature of this putative “greatest arpg(s) of all time”? What if adding it would make LE worse?
You mean like D3 is the best arpg of all time? Critically?
1 Like
This last quote from you isn’t saying it’s “your final judgement” but a fact. That however is not a fact, but just your opinion.
3 Likes