So the actual response is: ‘while people are showing they want partial resets, it’s not currently in the scope of what we can do during 1.0, and we’ll be looking to act on that feedback in 1.1’?
This is actually exactly why I personally feel that the power of the build shouldn’t really be considered in this case at all, as it’s difficult to find the right cut-off about how much a build is overperforming, when should it warrant a bug fix and when it shouldn’t. I’d say that bugs should all be fixed as fast as possible, whether they result in a highly overperforming build, only a slightly overperforming one or even an underperforming one. Of course significantly overperforming bugs should have priority, but all of them need fixing if they have any impact on the player experience.
One of the most frustrating experiences for me in the game so far have been when trying out a new skill upgrade or passive and noticing it simply doesn’t work as stated in the tooltip. And I don’t think these bugs should only be fixed quickly if the result makes it to the top of the leaderboard.
Whatever the case, it’s good that you’ll at least consider making these fixes from now on. I’m not too fussed with leaderboards personally, but it certainly makes a bad impression for potential players when so many videos and streams are filled with bugged interactions like these.
4 Likes
And if it still isn’t clear…it was a bug fix.
1 Like
Somewhat - The information will be there for anyone to ignore entries they want to ignore. We aren’t able to scope in to 1.1 filter and backend service coding for changing what results get returned to the leaderboards for a better supported UX for those players.
4 Likes
I appreciate the effort to communicate on this matter, don’t misunderstand me. But rather than try to forum lawyer every build option and decide if it’s subject to a balance change or not, I would just assume all things are subject to change and collect items for several backup options.
I mean druids can become literally invincible right now with extreme cooldown recovery and two specific nodes, but everything is working exactly as it says on the tin.
As it does what it says it’s supposed to, even being overpowered, it’s then not a bug and something we would look to change at the start of a cycle rather than mid-cycle.
8 Likes
Currently of the 50 runs shown on 1 player softcore for the cycle, 46 are bugged. Sorry, but this doesn’t help anyone. Seeing that 46 of those 50 runs were using bugged interactions isn’t going to do anything for the leaderboard, except render it a joke. If you go to specific classes, it gets worse for classes that had the bugs, and better for ones that didn’t.
Sorry, but it’s kind of a joke to say ‘you can just ignore them’ when only 50 runs are shown, and 46 of those are from a bug.
3 Likes
Without as strong of words, I don’t really disagree. If we didn’t agree to at least some extent, there would be no reason for us to look at filters in the future!
4 Likes
Except there was an official stance on the issue, then people complained, so they changed that stance. Not sure I would call that consistent or reliable.
As someone who played a … euhm … modest amount of beta, I saw a lot of bugs being fixed that I didn’t really noticed being there through gameplay. A majority of those bugs were at a 2x level. So at worst, they were equal to something I could get from a +4 Level or similar, basically a ‘perfect roll’ T7 affix extra.
Meh, that’s not far off from being lucky on some drops/crafts. But it sure won’t be something I focus my entire build around
So XP Tomes are being restored for CoF players as duplicatable?
2 Likes
Has the team considered implementing a decay to the leaderboards?
That is, over a period of time if someone isn’t playing that character it starts to drop down the ranks? If someone shoots to the top with a bugged build and then it’s fixed and they never play that character again in order to secure that leaderboard spot, decay would enable newer, non-bugged builds to overtake that leaderboard position or encourage the player to obtain a new position with a current, non-bugged build.
I feel like it’d just be better to say that then though no? Like, if the post just said
'The results for partial reset shows a clear direction, especially when compared to the results for a full reset, but currently what would be required to do this is out of our current scope: To be blunt, other things are higher priority (bug fixes, stability etc…).
However this is something that will be coming at some point, potentially through the function of filters. Sorry this one will take a while, but the coding and ux for it requires more than we can currently allocate.’
Instead of people being confused (its not just me), and having to figure out what the actual stance on it is? (Like we seem to have to keep doing, over and over).
Thank you for coming to your senses -and you will not nerf the builds that were going to be farmed for several weeks, etc.
Please polish the optimization of the game to a perfect state so that more people with computers who are invited to play only at minimum settings can play your game.(The game is good despite the fact that there are a lot of problems in it)
Thanks
Because we don’t like promising things we haven’t started to look into yet so don’t know enough to say if it may even be possible.
2 Likes
So just, leave that part out. It shouldnt require me having to try and get a straight answer out of a dev, to actually get the official take on this. That should just be in the post.
This is one of the main reasons why I love EHG and am optimistic about the future of LE. The devs are constantly looking for feedback from the community and actively respond to it.
2 Likes
Kain, just to let you know there are also a lot of people like us who appreciate this recap and EHG’s responses on issues that EHG has addressed but doesn’t have a confirmed solution yet, whether due to technical difficulty or design philosophy.
I think you guys have proved yourself of being able to listen to communities while still able to maintain your own designing principles.
5 Likes
Yes, very slightly over half of the people who voted said they did want a partial reset. Therefore very slightly under half either didn’t care or didn’t want a partial reset.
5 Likes
Really enjoy the way you showed the results and discussed them, the transparency we get from EHG is always appreciated.
4 Likes