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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Really enjoy the way you showed the results and discussed them, the transparency we get from EHG is always appreciated.
Honestly, when I looked at those 2 graphs, I noticed that a) a significant amount of players would be reluctant to ‘punish’ legitimate builds with an entry removal just because another class was bugged, and b) being able to exclude pre-fix entries seems to satisfy a decent amount of players.
Their current solution would also solve the issue of perspective, as mentioned in the “what is a mild bug” part, so if you happen to disagree with a bug fix being done mid-cycle, you can still look at the older entries as valid. If the partial reset was completely up to EHG to chose, someone else would probably complain that it wasn’t consistent with the acknowledgement that “mild bug” is a subjective thing.
I feel that would punish anyone enable to play in the last 2 weeks of a cycle, because that’s when all the competition will be.
And your solution also wouldn’t fix the broken builds getting higher ranks, those people would just log their char once a week to maintain the position. Unless you meant each entry decays, but again, no point in competing untill the last 10% of the cycle duration.
The level of indignation you have over this is wildly out of proportion.
You haven’t been harmed in any way. They fixed the bug. They’re showing you who abused the bug and who didn’t. They’re going to give you everything you want, just not all of it right now, because their dev schedule doesn’t revolve around a made up leaderboard that some people take too seriously. Quit manufacturing reasons to justify jumping down their throat when everything they’re doing here is the right thing.
Great communication and feedback, and seems common sense on most issues here.
I just wanted to ask.
What if a particular feature or mechanic is under/over performing? Lets says a boss becomes a wet noodle to kill, or the opposite, and is too much of a bullet sponge.
CoF for example is very poorly tuned and unrewarding, Is this something that would or could be reworked mid cycle?
I just wondered as it’s not always the character player that needs attention, sometimes its a game feature or mechanic.
We will continue to make changes and bug-fixes which result in a buff.
a comment I saw on a youtube video on this subject and with which I agree: “This is a great direction but bugs causing skills to underperform needs equal attention.”
The problem is that 46 of the 50 runs shown (in the 1 player softcore ladder, also the 1 player softcore acolyte ladder), are from bugs. Adding information to them doesnt do anything, theres a limit of 50 being shown.
Viewing ‘i dont mind either way’ as the opposite of wanting it, means you have to view it as the opposite of not wanting it as well, otherwise it’s just including bias into how you analyse them. Either those results are taken seperately and as a third part, or ignored entirely.
Sorry, are you saying you believe making changes/bug-fixes which result in a buff mid-cycle would be controversial and should be surveyed?
(this wasn’t covered in the survey because as mentioned, our stance is to continue making changes/bug-fixes mid-cycle which result in a buff, and we didn’t think that would have much opposition)