Critically; severely; seriously, I greatly demanded active skill respeccing option by spending in-game gold to refund every active skill point (20 active skill points) , for example you spent in-game gold to respec an active skill you wanted, therefore you got every active skill point (20 skill points) of the active skill returned to you. Goal is for more convenient to try active skill you want. Critically; severely; seriously, find, update, patch and expand LAST EPOCH the option.
I believe Mike once said that they donât want you to be able to swap everything in town, because then youâll just run 2 builds: a map clear and a boss one. The current system forces you to make choices for your build for multiple situations, rather than min-max 5 different builds WoW-style.
Also, we get it, you own a thesaurus; You donât need to keep throwing a ton of synonyms as your post, it makes you sound pompous.
1 Like
Wtf is this word salad?
3 Likes
Critically; Severely; Seriously;
Wonât happen.
Has been in-depth discussed already as well a short while ago. With even an answer from a dev that it might be eased up on in the future, but not remotely to the named degree.
End of message hence. Re-spamming the topic wonât change it, especially not in such a ridiculously low-quality manner focused on a clickbait title. This isnât for a 1 minute doomscrolling content factory like TikTok but for a long-term playable game.
1 Like
If there were the option, there would have had more money, more profit, higher competitive score, higher review score and more player, assuredly.
You did not want them had more player, more money, higher competitive score, higher review score and more profit, did you?
It is the improvement for more money, more profit, higher competitive score, higher review score and more player for them.
âAssuredlyâ there would be less of all that, because easy is not exciting to most players, no matter how verbose you describe your PoV.
1 Like
You had not have seen it from higher successful game, had you?
Define âhigher successfulâ and describe in what way forcing players to maintain separate builds for different content types contributes to this.
What you are asking for goes against their design intent. It takes away the decision of creating a build that excels at one thing, or is decent at everything. This is exactly what World of Warcraft has continued to implement and they have actually only gone down in âhigher successfulnessâ ever since they did so. The same thing is true for Diablo 3: while the Wardrobe provided QoL, the lack of build swap cost meant that all specs in that game are focused only on optimizing 1 task, disregarding everything else. D3 was originally planned to have a 2nd expansion. Not that successful. PoE specifically made the cost relatively high to get players to commit to their builds.
So, no, I have not seen it from a âhigher successfulâ game, because it doesnât happen.
2 Likes
3star Michelin restaurant overpriced dish. And we greatly demand tips 
Itâs not so hard to relevel skills. For me current system is totally ok. It is not free and not too expensive in terms of time
1 Like
Unfortunately, it is as I wrote. Believe me the option will have made the game and them more great things. They are needing the option for more positive things.
You didnât write anything that explains your argument. âI demand X, itâs going to make the game more successful, trust me, bro!â is not a reasoning you convince other people with.
Just saying it is better for the game doesnât make it so.
You canât even sell your idea to a single person here on the forums, and they donât have to care about pesky things like business revenue. Why would a dev agree with you when none of the players here do?
1 Like
I did not need to explain. I was here to command. I hope they take my feedback, advice and suggestion. For more player, more money, more profit, higher competitive score and higher review score.
More players /= product longevity.
High peaks of casual short-term gamers do generally worse in a live-service environment then a lower amount of a long-term core audience.
More money also doesnât correlate properly with player numbers. It does though with play-time. Longer playing customers tend to have a higher chance to pay more then short-term players.
Competitiveness is not even an argument since your issues have no means to provide a competitive environment. Review score of LE is high, of D4 itâs low, D4 does what you want to have and still it does worse, hence that argument is inherently false as itâs not a core reason related to review score.
More profits = more money, hence answered above.
Which one?
The only games more successful in the genre are D3, D4, Path fo Exile 1, Path of Exile 2 and Torchlight Infinite (barely).
D3 and D4 are made by a colossus of the gaming industry, with PR beyond belief. They throw money in amounts around that everyone tries out their game. Long-term success of both D3 and D4 has always been critical though, actually with losses beyond the initial hype before stabilizing. A common theme with Blizzard games. Overhyping and underperforming.
Path fo Exile 1 and 2 do the opposite of what you ask, which actively makes them more successful, so theyâre a counter to your argument.
Torchligh Infinite focuses on the money making itself, which is why despite actually decent content and systems which are at times better then LE it does worse. It skimps out on quality and solely focuses on a more shallow experience with content drops just good enough to keep an audience⌠but never properly competitive as it has P2W elements (which remove any form of proper competition outside of RL pockets) and focuses on them more and more rather then less, which is a sign of a failing system as has been shown over decades on the market by now.
âTrust me bro!â Is all youâre saying. Provide proof, provide examples and explanations to those examples.
All youâre writing are empty words.
You can go and command your toy ship in the bathtub, beyond that Iâm sorry to say⌠nobody gives a singular fuck about your commands. 
4 Likes
Thatâs not how suggestions work.
But whatever, if you arenât willing to explain your reasoning, you can go command a wall to listen to you ramble about âhigher competitive scoreâ.
2 Likes
Whoever is preventing LAST EPOCH to have the option, you are devastating gameLAST EPOCH, assuredly.
If you are preventing LAST EPOCH to have the option, you are devastating gameLAST EPOCH, assuredly. I hope they obey my command, because the option will have brought them huge profit.
Factually wrong.
It has been showcased over the last decades that such systems are actively detrimental. The option to respec without downsides causes a reduction in interactivity. Hence it causes a reduction in retention time.
As already mentioned in several other topics, Path of Exile had the exact same issue for a while where builds included a gem-switch from AoE damage for clear to single-target for a boss. Every single map.
This caused a player reduction rather then an increase. Without reducing the maximum available amount of skill points when switching this would mean that in LE there would also be this option available⌠and hence deemed âoptimal and necessaryâ by many people. This causes you to get pulled out of the game-loop (which you want to avoid as much as possible) and hence a reduction in engagement, which reduces play-time before someone stops.
So solely for that aspect it wonât happen, because it is damaging and detrimental to the longevity of a game. The more of it is available the less time people put into a game as it tends to âburn them outâ for a large amount of players. In comparison the amount of players which only play with it instead are a miniscule and generally short-term playing base, exactly what a long-lasting live-service game doesnât want to focus on for good reasons, itâs risky and needs substantial effort to upkeep for relatively low returns long-term.
Unfortunately, the skill respeccing option by in-game gold is still the best.