Expanded - 5/5/25 - New player to Last Epoch: Feedback for S2! (on a variety of very random things!) + NEW Class/Artwork & 'Mech Era' idea + In-game player feedback given on the spot!

Feedback and Suggestions
21

Right. You’re right. There needs to be drawbacks. I should have included those.

In regards to either of the weapon swap systems I proposed (notably the concept of Harmonic Resonance’ Swapping), the ‘drawbacks’ is the easy part! :joy: Developers of ARPGs are real professionals when it comes to nerfs/drawbacks. You popped the question, though, so let’s get into it :slight_smile:

  1. Resource Management Strain: While a swap might grant a temporary benefit like a free spell or empowered hit, the act of swapping itself could consume a significant chunk of your primary resource (mana, energy, rage, etc.). This would force players to carefully consider when and if the short-term gain is worth the immediate resource cost, especially in prolonged engagements.

  2. Stat Specialization Dilution: To truly capitalize on mode-specific skills and passive interactions tied to weapon types, players might feel compelled to invest in a broader range of stats. For instance, a Rogue switching between bow and daggers might need to balance Dexterity (for bow damage and accuracy) with Strength or Finesse (for melee prowess). This could lead to characters feeling less potent in either specific role compared to a more heavily specialized build that doesn’t rely on swapping.

  3. Cooldown Overlap or Conflicts: Skills tied to different weapon sets might have independent cooldowns. However, frequently swapping could lead to situations where you want to use a key skill from your previous weapon set, but it’s still on cooldown. Alternatively, certain powerful buffs or procs gained from swapping might have internal cooldowns that limit how often you can effectively utilize the swap for those benefits.

  4. Gear Optimization Complexity: While encouraging deeper build crafting is a goal, the need to optimize gear for two distinct weapon sets and potentially different stat priorities could become significantly more complex. Players might need to acquire and manage two sets of weapons and potentially even armor pieces with different affixes to maximize the potential of their swapping playstyle. This could increase the gear grind and make gearing feel more cumbersome.

  5. Momentary Vulnerability: The act of weapon swapping itself could introduce a brief moment of vulnerability where the player is unable to attack, cast, or use other abilities. This “swap delay” would need to be carefully balanced – too short and it’s negligible, too long and it becomes a significant risk in fast-paced combat, requiring careful timing and prediction.

  6. Passive/Buff Uptime Management: Passives or buffs that only activate upon swapping might have limited durations. Players would need to constantly manage the uptime of those effects by swapping frequently, potentially disrupting their natural combat flow or rotations. Missing a swap window could lead to a significant drop in damage or utility.

Now you see? This is what I was talking about when I said players will be dealing the same damage, etc. as they are now with their current build setups (as if weapon swapping [or ‘Harmonic Resonance’ Swapping] still never even existed) and… well, if they ‘miss out’ on dealing extra damage from extra effects then they miss out. Simple as that! It’s not a game-breaking thing where players would not be able to ‘complete’ current end-game content they’re engaged in now.

  1. Skill Slot Pressure: While the initial suggestion includes separate Skills per weapon set, the total number of active Skills a player can readily access might still be limited. Players would need to make tough choices about which Skills to slot for each weapon set, potentially leaving out valuable abilities that don’t fit neatly into either “mode.”

Those trade-offs aim to ensure that while weapon swapping becomes a more dynamic and rewarding mechanic, it doesn’t become an automatic “must-do” for all builds or trivialize other aspects of character development and combat strategy.

The key would be finding the right balance where the benefits of swapping are significant enough to be enticing, but the associated costs and complexities are meaningful enough to encourage thoughtful decision-making.

You see? I hope that answers your question(s)

22

Mana is not an issue in endgame builds, so this is not a tradeoff at all.

Going with Rouge example, there is not a single Rouge skill that uses other stats than Dexterity, so in this case this would not apply. For other classes, maybe, but I’m playing Rouge primarily so I cannot say for sure. (Although I’m pretty sure Sentinel uses Strength and Attunement.)

Endgame builds would have optimized rotations so the cooldowns never overlap (look at Guild Wars 2 for example, where weapon swaps are mandatory in endgame).

This tracks.

The entire point of a skill rotation with weapon swaps is to manage those buffs (again, look at Guild Wars 2 for example), so that is not really a tradeoff.

I’m entirely against the idea of having different skills for different weapons, as the game is currently. There are not that many skills to choose from, and we need to select what we take over something else. For Rouge example, you can either take Smoke Bomb to give yourself Haste and apply Blind on enemies, or take Decoy to make enemies stop focusing on you. Being able to just switch to another “skillbar” to use the one or the other defeats the purpose of having to choose one of them.

1 Like
23

Alright. That’s all fair.

So… I have done my fair share of brainstorming here on my part. What would you propose for ‘better/actual’ drawbacks in such a system vs. just giving up on the idea entirely?

Mind you, what I have drawn up here is a mere blueprint for a new type of weapon swap mechanic (Harmonic Resonance Swapping) as I explained it in full detail.

I am also very new to Last Epoch (not even a week in thus far) so if I misspoke on a particular thing/intricacy, that is my bad. :slight_smile:

P.S. I miss playing Guild Wars. Such a good game in its prime. Takes me back.

24

I would propose not implementing it at all, or at least not in the current state of the game. There are much more important things to do, such as removing snapshotting, reworking old masteries (we got Sentinel this patch, and rumors are that Acolyte is next), finishing up (currently experimental) WASD movement.

Maybe somewhere in the future, when (if) we get (a lot) more skills for each class/mastery it would make sense, but for now, I personally, don’t think it does.

1 Like
25

Don’t kid yourself. Putting something in that advantages weapon swapping makes it mandatory for folks who want to win (aka hold top slot on ladders)

I personally find weapon or spec swapping mechanics are bad, because they remove tradeoffs, instead of causing us to overcome them.

Build A obliterates everything except ghosts? Just make build B that obliterates ghosts and swap!

2 Likes
26

I definitely agree with WASD Movement changes. I am hoping for a hybrid Mouse/Keyboard WASD option where the ‘S’ key makes your character take a step back vs. turning all the way around and running in the other direction.

27

Then the devs can make it where weapon swapping (no matter how good the implementation and idea is) isn’t allowed at all for Ladder Characters that are created for Ladder climbing. Problem solved on that.

Meanwhile, the rest of us players can enjoy new mechanics/things throughout LE’s continued development. :slight_smile:

28

Updated - 5/4/2025 - Added screenshots to the OP to better illustrate typos/punctuation errors under the ‘ON TEXT (improving reading comprehension throughout the game)’ section. Also added a section/screenshot of actual player feedback in-game from Chat when asked the question, “What changes do you want to see? It can be UI or combat-related.”

29

thats your opinion. it is not a fact.

for starters, D2 is an ANCIENT game. it may be the grand daddy of d-likes, but if you’re going to use d2 as your base line then you have to contend with other outdated mechanics such as not having any REAL crafting.

also do you want to have early 2000s trade system? GGG/POE has been stubbornly using it “forever” and many are calling for it to be made automated. but instead we get players scammed even to this day, we also have price fixers who litter the trade site with underpriced listings with no intention of selling.

we would also have no new leagues/cycles if we’re using d2 model. so dont give me that “it should be in PERIOD” bullshit.

different games are built differently. for your to spout about how balance is not affected, i’ve been playing POE1 for years. one of the biggest issues was hotsapping/snapshotting. where they would use their weapon swap to get a huge persistant buff or effect or minion out then switch back.

you were literally a fool for not using this for certain builds. it’s not diversity when its literally the best thing to use the weapon swap for.

in d4 its worse, where for barbs, they had multiweapon swaps but essentially they’re all stat sticks where some weapons were there just for bonuses.

as for your harmonic resonance swapping, it is a good idea which is already implemented in godfall. they have a lot of mechanics tied to weaponswapping and it does have what you call a FLOW.

the problem goes back to balancing. how do you make it so that players who DONT WANT to swap, dont feel punished for not utilizing the ability?

and i have already mentioned. weapon swaps give devs an excuse not to balance things out.

i usually love using 2 handed melee builds. by default, melee 2handers should have weaker defences and would have problems with range attackers. they typically should have some down time when a boss does a huge telegraphed attack.

its a problem that the game devs need to solve, how do they solve this issue? in TLI, they introduced demolisher charges, which are melee attack buffs that provide a huge attack buff for a single attack but has a cooldown. POE1 has something similar. POE also gave 2 handers warcries which can buff their damage significantly so that during the “downtime”, they can actively prepare to get back into battle.

with a weapon swap the game dev doesnt need to come up with such solutions. why do they need to find a solution when they can say “oh bro, you should just use a bow in your weapon swap”.

then what do we get? we’re FORCED to use the weapon swap because the game is balanced around weapon swap.

D-likes are a headache to balance by default. everythings in the game adds a level of complexity that the devs need to balance out.

perhaps my point that i tried to get across was not delivered in a way that you could understand. that is my bad. but believe me. it is a sharp point. and if you dont see it. perhaps the one not sharp is not my point.

1 Like
30

With all due respect, let’s break down a few of your off-topic bunny trails and grievances, a few of which have absolutely nothing to do with anything I said or even suggested at all.

Your responses broken down:

“The problem goes back to balancing. how do you make it so that players who DONT WANT to swap, dont feel punished for not utilizing the ability?”

I already explained that part in my other responses! by saying (and detailing in full) that the way in which I suggested for an innovative weapon swap system will actually not punish players but give players more agency to explore possibilities, etc. in a balanced way.

How? Again, it is all in the way it is implemented and players who do not want to use weapon swapping do not have to do so! Where do you get off that I suggested a ‘forced’ system when what I am advocating for is for more build agency/possibilies?

“That’s your opinion, not a fact.”

This is a classic deflection. Not every opinion is ‘subjective’. If you’re arguing, for example, that weapon swapping improves build expression and combat fluidity, that can be evaluated against game design principles, developer intentions, and practical gameplay outcomes. That makes it an arguable and demonstrable point, not just a baseless opinion.

“D2 is an ANCIENT game” / “If you’re using D2 as a baseline…”

I am not arguing for a full return to Diablo II-era mechanics; I am drawing a relevant comparison to a successful foundational system. No one is suggesting to transplant D2’s exact systems (e.g. archaic trading or lack of crafting) into modern games, but rather, to recognize the solid ideas it had, such as: itemization, impactful player choice and simplicity that still offered depth.

Referencing D2 doesn’t mean advocating for no modern updates. I was just pointing to a successful design model, just as developers do when referencing any legacy title. It’s a design lineage, not a blueprint.

“PoE trade system is bad” / “Scamming, price fixing, etc.”

This point is completely off-topic unless the original argument was about trade systems, which it wasn’t. Dragging in unrelated criticisms (PoE’s trade clunkiness) does not negate the value of mechanics like weapon swapping or other combat systems. This is a derailment tactic and adds noise rather than staying on topic.

“No new leagues/cycles if we used D2 model”

Again, this is based on a false dichotomy. You can adopt mechanical ideas from D2 (or any older game) without adopting its content cadence or business model. PoE adopted leagues with great success. D2 didn’t have them because of the era not because it’s a core limitation of its design philosophy.

“Snapshotting was OP in PoE” / “Swapping creates imbalance”

This is a partial truth, but irrelevant unless you’re arguing that all forms of weapon swapping should be unrestricted and unmoderated. Abuse of snapshotting itself is a failure of implementation not the concept of swapping itself. Fixing abuse cases is a balance/design issue not a reason to abandon the entire system!

Just like cooldowns, global CDs, or animation locks, any powerful mechanic can be regulated. Dismissing weapon swaps because PoE once mishandled snapshotting is like dismissing skills because some are overtuned. Does that make sense? No, it does not! Lol. :joy:

“Godfall already does this” / “The idea is already implemented”

Great. So other games have implemented similar systems successfully. This actually supports my point! even though you’re trying to twist it into a negative. If weapon flow feels good in Godfall, then it shows it’s a viable, immersive combat mechanic. Right? I rest my case. Thank you.

“How do you avoid punishing players who don’t want to weapon swap?”

This is a valid question but the answer isn’t to remove the feature! It is to ensure parity in design: e.g., players who prefer single-weapon builds can be compensated with talents, passives, or utility tools. This is solvable, as many games do exactly that. Giving players more tools is not inherently punishing. It’s only punishing when balance is lazy. Can we agree on that?

“Weapon swap excuses devs from balance” / “Forced to use it”

This is an oversimplification. Weapon swap only becomes “mandatory” if nothing else is viable, which, again, is a balance issue not an inherent flaw in the mechanic. The presence of weapon swapping doesn’t excuse developers from designing interesting tools for specific builds.

Smart developers will use both: robust build-specific tools and universal mechanics like swapping that can enhance versatility. If a build requires a particular swap just to survive (deal damage or what have you) then that is a matter of poor balancing not proof that weapon swapping is bad!

“If you don’t agree, you must be the problem”

This closing tone is defensive and condescending not persuasive. All you’re doing there, honestly, is saying that disagreement comes from a lack of intelligence rather than the possibility you might be wrong (or misrepresenting the argument). That actually weakens your credibility!

Conclusively, my original point(s) — about weapon swapping, combat flow, or a specific system — was met with a scattershot rant filled with emotional appeals, off-topic grievances, and logic that really doesn’t make sense. I’m not attacking you/throwing shade but really trying to talk this all through with you.

You misrepresented my stance altogether, jumped to extremes and you ultimately failed to engage with actual ideas to add to the discussion.

A better approach would have been to isolate what you’re arguing for, keep it focused (e.g., “weapon swapping enhances build diversity when designed properly”), and to come to terms with the fact that legacy influence (like from D2, as just one example) does not mean regression. Innovation is often about improved-upon iteration, not revolution.

Mind you, I am not upset with you. Again, with all due respect, you’re really just all over the place in your response. I appreciate you joining the discussion, though :slight_smile:

31

Honestly, just let the guy be happy.
He doesn’t want to be confronted with logical arguments, he just wants to live his fantasy.

32

That would make sense if not for the fact I discredited his debate and proved he went off-topic on things that had absolutely nothing to do with what was suggested/put on the table.

He then goes on to reference a game like Godfall and inadvertently admits that when weapon swapping is done properly and implemented properly, yea, it is good and it does flow well!

Case closed. Being closed-off to improving/innovating a game (any game) will only stagnate its development in the long-term.

33

on his first response to me he already took a stab at me with his “not sharp” comment.
but after his last response i’ve lost interest in interacting with him.

i ll just let him be happy since hes happy at taking jabs at me saying i m defensive and condescending while being the first the one who started it off on that tone.

1 Like
34

It was a nonchalant way I put the ‘not sharp’ comment had I been debating with you in person.

And to quote, “In other words, the general point you’re getting across is not a very sharp one.”

I wasn’t even that harsh about it. That is a you issue with the way you took it. My bad for offending you!

Further, it would be an entirely different thing if I very directly insulted the entirety of your intelligence. I spoke of your ‘general point’ not your entire character as a person (big difference, friend).

That being said, I disagree with your views that fight to add nothing to the game that will ultimately stagnate it in the long-term. That’s not to say you don’t also know what you’re talking about on a few matters, just that you’re very closed-minded to game changes/innovation.

35

(post deleted by author)

36

Yea, as a matter of fact, I do call that not harsh in the grand scheme of things when it comes to debating, esp. amongst strangers here on the internet.

Come on. I was chill af when I wrote that sentence. And I literally apologized for offending you in just my other response I wrote.

I apologize for coming across offensive. And that was my bad. Poor choice of wording, alright?

“lol regardless. i m done here. i m happy for the game not having weapon swaps and hope ehg keeps it that way. i rather they balance the existing classes before doing something silly like introduce a new mechanic while 50% of their playerbase are playing sentinel.”

And I am also in agreement to the devs focusing on other issues! That is certain. However, if the devs wish for the game to have a longer lifespan then they need to keep innovating and introducing new things/mechanics after said issues get resolved. And that’s with any live-service game.

P.S. Honestly, all disagreements on this matter aside, the hilarious thing here to me (regardless of who supports what vs. who does not) is… the fact that, against all other suggestions here, the Weapon Swapping mechanic (and the lack thereof) became the main point of discussion when, in all actuality, I myself would also like to see other things implemented in the game first! :joy:

I do thank you for joining the discussion. And yes, I do sincerely apologize for coming across coarse/harsh. :handshake:

37

OP pmd me and apologized.

i accept it and i m happy that he did so. since he did that i feel hes done enough to show his sincerity. we’re cool.

as for the topic i’ve got nothing further to add. so i ll just move on.

1 Like
38

I’m not going to chime in on the rest, but this is objectively false. Opinions are subjective by definition. If they weren’t subjective, they wouldn’t be opinions, they would be facts.

39

Good morning :coffee: (afternoon or evening) :slight_smile:

:thinking: There are both ‘subjective’ opinions and ‘objective’ opinions, though (in this case, when it comes to ‘established’ systems in gaming, etc. being discussed and demonstrated, or proving their verifiability based on pre-existing systems that have been tried and are true).

So yea, not every opinion is purely ‘subjective’, my friend. I still stand by that.

To meet you in the middle here, you would be absolutely correct if you said, “Opinions are generally subjective, though some opinions can be more or less objective depending on how strongly they’re grounded in evidence, reasoning and whether or not they’re verifiable or demonstrable as a result of said evidence (or pre-existing ‘established’ system, etc.).”

However, you took a more absolute stance whereas mine, when saying, “Not every opinion is subjective” is a more neutral stance that also takes ‘objectivity’ in consideration within the realm of discourse (such as this very discussion).

Subjective opinion: “Vanilla is better than chocolate.” (Purely taste-based)
Potentially objective opinion: “Smoking increases the risk of cancer.” (Based on evidence; open to expert analysis, but still sometimes called an ‘opinion’ in discourse)

So my statement “Not every opinion is ‘subjective’.” is actually not ‘objectively’ false by default; it is a legitimate position that reflects the nuanced way ‘opinion’ is used in practice, especially in academic, legal, or technical contexts.

In other words, people who constantly say, “That’s just your opinion! That’s just your opinion!” are sometimes wrong because not everything is an opinion but a fact, that or it is still an opinion but an objective opinion that has more evidence to back it up vs. being purely subjective in nature. You see?

However, there are nuances. :slight_smile: In practice, people often use the word ‘opinion’ in contexts where objective evidence plays a role**, such as: expert opinion in science or law or informed opinions based on evidence or logic on other topic matters.

In those cases, they approach ‘objectivity’ yet they’re still called ‘opinions’ because 1. They may involve interpretation or uncertainty and 2. They are not proven, cannot be demonstrated, are not grounded in evidence or logic, and they cannot be verified with a lick of certainty with said evidence or logic.

P.S. As much I do enjoy a good debate, I would honestly rather be debating on matters that directly have to do with LE, with all due respect. :handshake:

40

There aren’t. This is pure semantics at this point, but when something is verifiably true it’s no longer an opinion. It’s a fact.
If I look outside and it’s raining, it’s not my opinion it’s raining, it’s a fact.