He said actively ‘no’.
It’s beyond rude to tag a dev for pestering them after receiving a clear-cut answer. I think it’s even against the Forum Rules.
Would be different if you’ve got actualy questions for clarification about details… but you don’t.
1 Like
Yeah, no. Have you ever tried to take sweets away from children? Does it go well? How would you like it if they implemented wasd or respecs or whatever and you loved it but then they removed it? Would you be happy or would you be ranting on the forums?
That’s ok, but as has previously been mentioned, you are wrong (which is also ok).
@Kulze don’t forget sales tax/vat. That’s another ~20%.
No, they aren’t.
I likely have forgotten to include a ton of other things. Auxiliary costs are a thing after all. Business upkeep, office rent or building upkeep, supplies, contractors for everything not done in-house (translation being a major one often, both EHG and GGG have absolutely awful companies for that)
It were rather positive estimates overall, especially given that I inflated the personal cost from EHG and likely pushed the ones from Blizzard down heavily… just to prove the point that despite those changes it’s still uneven.
1 Like
What? I’m talking about mastery respec which doesn’t exist at all. I am confused by your sentence here, because all your other sentences seem to realize that I’m talking mastery respec.
Maybe you glitched and thought I was talking skill respec.
Yep, brain-fart there from my side.
Still, mastery respec in end-game wouldn’t make sense nonetheless, by that time you should know the build direction you’re going with, or at least have played substantially towards at least a direction. Reducing the option of 15 classes down to 5 basically (as you could switch in some way around still) would severely reduce replayability of the game, which is bad for longevity.
In the current state of the game not much of a downside, but that’s a thing which has to be taken into consideration for the next year… 5 years… 10 years ahead. It’s one of the lowermost core components of characterization of the game after all.
Lol, I’m not asking for mastery respec at endgame. Like, what’s next after mastery respec? Class respec? Who needs this?
I am in favor of what I see as a business opp for EHG - for you maniacs that have 25 chars and want to try a variation of a mastery you already have, EHG should sell you a char slot. That said, I don’t know how tough it would be to allow extra skills slots, development-wise. All that said, I’d rather they implement an armory so we can switch between builds within the same mastery. I’d use that.
Honestly, I’m not asking for mastery respec at all. Just kind of feeling bad for first time players maybe getting blind-sided with something they don’t like and having to start all over. Give every char a respec consumable that costs increasing amount of gold based on level and is used up when opening corruption.
I think what makes this conversation difficult to have is that most of the people posting here are focused on character identity. Mastery is just a component of that. Older players, players that play other RPGs (especially table top RPGs), players that are looking for strong identification with the character want to prevent eroding that identification/connection.
People that just want to play the build, not the character, just want to be able to tweak stuff for optimal performance. They have no identification with the character, just the build.
This has got to be be painful for a developer to navigate.
Edit: I used to strongly be in the character-identification mindset. DAOC’s horrible treatment of the Thane class (NEVER FORGET!) made me realize that a dev’s vision for a class is never really going to mirror mine and it’s their game. So, I’ve drifted more into a middle ground, mostly so that I wouldn’t get so pissed off at what I think are poor class choices. Seasons increases this even more - I’m never coming back to this character, why do I care what mastery they are?
1 Like
It surely is. In game-design you don’t only have to fulfill your own aspirations after all. You need to also make a game which a substantially large group of people want to play after it’s been created.
And I agree with the whole sentiment you’ve presented. Yes, an armory would be good, yes, for the insane people including me buying more character slots would be fantastic, and also yes… it’s very much based on character identity discussion.
Not only those though. It’s also game longevity ones besides that. Less variety which is fixated after a time-sink means less replayability. The mechanics to support not getting burned out need to be up to par for that though… as well as the differences in feeling of builds need to be accordingly substantial. That’s definitely up for discussion at any time.
And yes… it’s a major and massive pain in the ass trying to navigate it nowadays, we have major clashing mindsets there after all. The ones which want to have every choice be meaningful and non-reversible, the ones which want every choice to be like a sandbox to switch around as freely as possible. Then that has to align with content, with expected play-time, with the upcoming mechanics, with general market sentiment at the time and more. It’s a nightmare to deal with… but… that’s the job there. ‘Make a game which is fun to play’ basically first and foremost… and when that is achieved to mandatorily reduce the fun (as awful as it sounds from a customer perspective, which we all in the forum are) to increase time investment into the product for as long as possible.
If you don’t take it far enough you ‘have seen everything’ very swiftly and leave, nothing new, no reason to come back. Live-service games die this way, which is their most prominent downside, cause server costs. If you push it too far then the game simply isn’t fun enough to warrant putting in the effort. This often leads to a ‘middling’ experience in the end, just enough to keep one entertained but also long enough to keep one engaged in tens or hundreds of hours. The harshest part is to make things as fun as possible while keeping the long-term retention provided… because without that any live-service game simply dies because of the ongoing - and quite massive - costs related to it. It’s what so many companies struggle to understand. The market is filled with live-service, there’s only ‘so much time’ every potentially playing person can put into gaming and everyone is vying for that time trying to push the other away as far far too many exist at the same time. Enforcing constant and non-stop updates, improvements, severe but risky changes that can backfire majorly to not let the experience ever go ‘stale’. It’s the harshest, most unrelenting and unthankful sector of gaming one can go into.
EHG went into it… now they’re here and in the middle, so they don’t need to be ‘good’ to survive, they need to be ‘masterful developers’ to even have a chance.
I think the solution is to have characters get stuff in seasons that you can only get for that season (it’s available to new characters in legacy or seasons, to not exclude those folks that only want to play legacy).
And by ‘stuff’ I mean nodes of a skill tree, character-specific boost you get in the campaign, anything that is really character specific. It doesn’t have to be balanced long-term, as only a character that gets that thing in that particular season can actually have that. You know, actually introduce genuine character defining aspects. Then I would remember and want to revisit that shaman that could summon a totem that was a whirlwind of storm crows.
Probably a crazy amount of dev.
Yes, it’s an option, albeit plainly spoken… I personally detest any form of limited time unlock, no matter the shape. I have more understanding for it as a unique result of a competition placing and less and less further away from that.
My personal position is that digital goods aren’t a limited thing, hence the notion of scarcity is something repulsive in my personal opinion there. Be it daily quests and rewards… or one-time seasonal unlocks which get ‘phased out’ and so on. Their value might only be perceived by the individual… but for a collector like me it’s a nightmare. I’ll then have to choose to invest time at a maybe problematic time in my life - be it work, family, health or anything else - and make sacrifices otherwise to upkeep my drive to collect 100% of things. Or… stop engaging when it becomes too overwhelming.
What I’m not against is mechanical things which can get phased out again, simply seasonal content that’s non-persistent. Like the aforementioned specific skill points, boosts and so on, solely applicable during the time of that specific season. I’m also not against delayed release for Legacy, hence providing a reasoning for the people which have the urge to get things ‘now’ rather then ‘inevitably over time’. This provides a good reason to play the Cycles after all, unique content only provided there… before it gets available for Legacy afterwards when the season’s over.
And yes, it’s a crazy amount of planning work, development work and testing. But… it’s also nowadays with the sheer mass amount of competition the only way to ensure success of a product. You can’t survive in the gaming industry anymore with ‘good’ results, you need to go ‘above and beyond’. Optimally through well thought out content pipelines that cause development to go as hitchless and quick as possible… rather then crunch-time which is a non-sustainable method.
Human might change human’s mind, any time.
Proper and compelling arguments do.
Pestering causes the opposite.
One might think you’re arguing against your topic with how you bring it forward.
1 Like
You did not want the game had more player and more great things, did you? Sometimes, developers and creators made mistake(s). C’mon, best arpg game is already having the option.
It is about time. You did not want the game had more player and more great things, did you? Why many people here were killing the game? The developers and creators might have made the option already, they might have released the option this month or next month.
I honestly don’t know why you guys keep engaging. It’s just like “discussing” anything with Abomb, but with a language barrier on top.
He doesn’t listen to any of the arguments being made, he doesn’t engage in any discussion and he won’t change his mind. All he’s been saying from the start is “Trust me bro, this is better, why don’t you want it to be better?”. And it’s been repeatedly shown that he won’t change his rhetoric. He knows the absolute truth and everyone else is wrong.
3 Likes
You wrote it to me? I did not have much time to explain it, but you could have trusted my opinion, it would have brought huge great things to the game.
I did write it to you. Because you don’t actually engage in discussion. People tell you “Because of A” and you ignore it and just keep saying “Trust me bro” without providing any new data. Because you simply ignore everything everyone says and keep saying “Trust me bro”. Even in that reply you said, very clearly, “but you could trust my opinion”.
But why would I trust your opinion over someone else’s? They are providing logical arguments and all you’re saying is “This will be better, it will bring lots of players, it will make lots of money.” but you don’t give any reasons as to why nor where you get that data from, other than “Trust me bro”. And “Trust me bro” by itself isn’t a valid argument.
1 Like
Short answer is ‘Because DIABLO IV has ‘Every active skill refund option by in-game gold paying’ and ‘A selected class can have tried every available active&passive&mastery skill in the selected class.’ , and DIABLO IV had got higher review score, higher competitive score, more player and more things than LAST EPOCH.’. Everyone had to convince developers and creators to create the option in the game already, for greater LAST EPOCH for everyone (Old¤t&new player).
Ok, that might be a better answer, but it’s not a valid one (as other people have pointed out and you ignored). Just because a game has some feature and sold more, doesn’t mean that feature will be better in all games.
Minecraft is the most sold game ever. So do you think we should pixelate the graphics, allow excavation and construction and change the game to a sandbox? After all, it’s the game with the most players so it must be good to do that, right?
Minecraft has many dissimilar things to DIABLO IV, but DIABLO IV and LAST EPOCH have many similar things. DIABLO IV got 9 score on IGN, while LAST EPOCH got 8 score on IGN. I have not been seeing worse thing from coming up of the mentioned option. I have been believing the mentioned option will have brought great things to LAST EPOCH, assuredly; certainly; definitely as I have seen the success of DIABLO IV. Most player has been playing DIABLO franchise, so the option will have brought more player to play LAST EPOCH. Most DIABLO player has been being familiar with the option.
Who? I’m not sure who you are talking about. 
2 Likes