It’s solely no advantage when the class is sub-par in every aspect and not in a single place superior to anything else.
I’m not even sure what you mean by that. You certainly didn’t “take his words at face value”, even when he explained that your “object-based texture” comment was how LE currently works more than once. Have you always assumed that everybody else is an idiot/wrong?
Because you know you’re running with a solid argument when you have to start using perjoratives. 
You ignored DJ & thought he was wrong & he is an actual programmer, so why would you believe an accountant who says the same thing? Just scroll up. You could also do a quick search of the forums for the explaination being given in the past except you can’t be arsed and somehow that’s now my fault. You do usually own your mistakes, but apparently not this one. 
Yes & no. We’d have had less other art, so presumably the chapter reworks & new chapters would have been slower to come out. But if that meant that EHG hadn’t needed to sell to Krafton? We will sadly never know.
To be an advantage, it needs to perform the best. The bar is not ‘sub-par’.
Yeah, but in every place sadly. It cannot ever be the best in anything then… otherwise it becomes P2W after all, no matter at which time. More classes? No combination ever allowed of any to be superior to all others at any moment.
As mentioned… that’s a hard ask, because to uphold it EHG would need to immediately nerf stuff when a surprising synergy with something comes up… or it’s P2W suddenly, no matter when.
Dunno what you’re reading there… as I didn’t argue against the point there.
I took it at damn face value what DJ said. The statement that object-based texture changes are also forced to be set and then limited to ‘1’ when compiling.
Which by the way… by now the information that it causes stuttering and worst-case artifacts was something I could read up on, which by the way is in one of the threads I didn’t read back when it was written, so obviously not in my knowledge base.
All others provide jack in relation to that, and if it’s actually true then DJ was even wrong with that statement I simply took and the issue is one step further along… also because of Unity’s messy engine, but it’s actually doable if that’s the case… just broken.
That’s why I’m calling you a clown. Unlike me and DJ talking around the precise point and then coming to a conclusion you’re just yelling randomly out.
The replies you’ve quoted are right at the end of the discussion, so you’re ignoring all of the disagreement & “taking at face value but assuming DJ’s either wrong or an idiot” that you were doing before. So well done you!
You didn’t, you consistently assumed that you knew more than he did & that he was either wrong or an idiot.
I refer you to my previous comment about perjoratives. You can call me as many names as you want, but it doesn’t make you right and tearing other people down doesn’t lift us up.
Anyway, on to the receipts:
Comment #1 on the topic:
[quote=“Llama8, post:15, topic:80177”]
Which they can’t other than recreating Yolo mouse. That’s also a kinda dumb argument, but at least it’s less dumb than the previous one.
This is when you replied to DJ & evidently assumed that he was either wrong or an idiot & you googled for some examples to support your point of view while, while fair, didn’t deal with the actual request from the person originally asking.
The rest of that post was based off of you not having understood the initial request, which happens & running with your initial assumption that you did understand & that everyone else was either wrong or an idiot & doubly so given they continued to disagree with you.
Nope.
It is, but so does PoE & Diablo (all of them). One might almost say it’s a genre-related issue.
This is DJ getting into some of the details without going full Kulze War & Peace, because brevity is good, he’s trying to get you to understand the issue (since you don’t) without wasting all of his time because this issue has been discussed repeatedly on the forum. I’ve bolded the relevant bits.
And here, DJ’s telling you the issue, so if you’d “taken that at face value”, you’d have stopped arguing with him about it.
This is DJ telling you that your proposed “object solution” is how LE already works & thus would not be sufficient & for bonus points he gives a way to work around it while also degrading performance, because LE has bucketloads of that to burn so it’s totes a good solution (this isn’t me being sarcastic to DJ)!!
You’re still not getting his point, or taking it “at face value” because you go back to the exact same thing despite DJ having told you why it won’t work.
So DJ tells you a third time (I think, I might have misscounted, oh the horror for an accountant!!) but you’ve totally “taken his words at face value”, maybe 4th time’s a charm?
We’re getting so close now, we’re at the vinegar strokes! Still assuming he’s either wrong or an idiot.
THERE WE GO!!! YOU’VE FINALLY UNDERSTOOD!!! DJ IS NEITHER AN IDIOT NOR IS HE WRONG!!! I’ve lost count of how many times you’ve “taken his words at face value” (which means that you assume they’re correct BTW, totally not what you displayed here).
This is a very amusing quote given that’s what you didn’t want to do yourself vis-a-vis Yolomouse & Unity, but anyway, just thought I’d leave that here…
Exactly! That’s the point, because:
Those resolve it as the other parts are to progress to that?
I mean… that’s how a discussion works. If you realize new points unknown formerly along the way you remedy your stance.
You know… how it’s supposed to go?
Which in hindsight I actually did… cause my argumentation line was right… but the issue is a different one then what DJ argued about. My solution actually works functionally but not performance wise sadly.
So yeah… I actually was right there surprisingly, my solution is a functional one… but not possible to implement anyway because of the engine’s crap implementation of that functionality.
True… but I tend to tear people down when I speak about a specific thing and people start trying to tear it down with something that’s not talked about. Which by the way… in this case both you and DJ did. You ignored the specific point entirely and DJ actually was wrong about the possibility of the solution for object based cursor changes via multi-highlighting. Functionally mind you, performance wise the engine fucks up.
And doubling or tripling down on that doesn’t make it better for your position. If you’ve read my argumentation line then my argumentation position either reinforced points which weren’t mentioned yet… or switched to the aspects of it which weren’t talked about instead.
Which is factually wrong though… but the performance from the engine is not holding up.
Functionally it is possible. But it sucks to do.
‘Clean’ solution but still broken.
Cause he actually was if you read the point I’m making. And the actual issue wasn’t mentioned once.
It’s about in-game cursor changes. Which yes… are possible with my provided solution once again… but not performance wise feasable thanks to the engine screwing up.
Which I understood and it’s actually natively provided. Which you can see at the example even:
This is the native methodology to do it.
This is functional.
This allows for non-runtime compulation base cursor changes.
The issue:
This causes stutters and artifacts.
But yes… it absolutely is possible. Still not a solution sadly.
Which is still not in relation to object based cursor changes. As I’ve found out by now object based ones are freely changeable. This still only relies on the default cursor.
Hence it still missed the point.
Which is why I’m saying DJ and me talked beside each other. Unlike you do now… which is simply lacking understanding of what the heck was even talked about and self-inserts into a finished conversation to prove a point for someone who’s already finished the conversation.
Which still didn’t properly take my solution into consideration.
Obviously the triggers are designed at runtime. Well… actually not all too obviously as you can create a code which does create the overlay object with the respective trigger for every single trigger-object into it. But that’s a performance nightmare even without the Unity crap going on.
So not even that is inherently true. But it would demand a check for a check for every object and hence doubles the performance hit at every tick, which actually starts to have even with clean coding inside the engine (which it doesn’t have as we’ve already determined) would start to cause performance impact.
But actually by now I know… he was! And the topic was entirely missed 
Thanks to you I only found out that DJ actually was wrong and I was right! Kudos there, I learned something new! But you didn’t yet, and DJ would need to read this mess here.
Cause nobody asked?
I mean… if you don’t know it exists you cannot search for it.
In my case I noted ‘read back, you can see it there’.
This is not a friggin attack… it’s a clarification. If you’re feeling attacked with something like that I recommend you re-evaluating how you perceive posts first.
Yes, but someone saying that “they took the other person’s words at face value” means that they didn’t challenge them & accepted them as true, which, as I’ve shown (& didn’t want to and most definitely couldn’t on my phone) you really didn’t over a long discussion.
Yes, because you didn’t understand what the original person was asking for & why your proposed solutions wouldn’t work, especially the first & second one (which is how LE’s always worked).
Yes.
No & no. You misunderstood what the original person was asking for, since that was the same thing that’s always asked for in this situation - the ability to pick & choose a “unique” mouse pointer that helps them see where the mouse is during the pixel soup of combat, without being forced to have the exact same mouse pointer that everyone else has who may or may not have the same issues when trying to work out where the fuck the mouse pointer is during combat.
Your position was based on a misunderstanding of the original ask.
All of which had been discussed or mentioned in the past few years since this started being asked for. And all of which were not viable solutions either due to performance (using overlays to allow for different cursors) or because the engine just doesn’t allow for it for reasons (allowing the player to pick & choose from a variety of cursors in a menu). But you just refused to accept that these had been discussed before & weren’t viable/allowed. One might almost say you were doubling down on it. Repeatedly.
Yes, just like me loosing enough weight to get back into the 28 inch jeans I wore when I was at uni. doesn’t make it a particularly useful argument.
He wasn’t & it was, you’re just ignoring it. Purposefully or not I wouldn’t hazard a guess at.
Yes, and at the risk of repeating myself, these have been mentioned repeatedly over the past few years. DJ even said it early on in the discussion which is in my post above. Complete with reasons why to not do that.
I assume you mean compilation, and yes, as has been said many times, that’s how LE currently works.
Edit: TBF, the script didn’t really mean much to me so I’d defer to @DJSamhein on this.
Of coooooooooooooooouuuuurse you were darling!! 
You can, you go to the little magnifying glass icon in the top right corner & start typing appropriate terms in. I’m slightly surprised I have to tell you how to use search functionality.
You missed the point. You calling people clowns is a perjorative.
the problem is devs literally said in 2018 there WONT BE ANY PAID CONTENT AND ALL UPDATES WILL BE FOR FREE in the next year you will see bunch of classes for money and sub classes this is just the begining you are delusional if you think it wont be
Sadly, All of the PoE Tencent simps will destroy this game. They will never stop, they will continue to piss on an experience that is more entertaining, cheaper, and less punishing then anything on the market today. They will keep complaining and mischaracterizing the game until it is gone. They will make sure NO developer ever, ever makes a non pay to win multi player game ever again, they will make sure NO investor will ever get behind a game that does not have malicious micro transactions ever again and then they will complain that, nothing exists that does not have shitty micro transactions. I don’t understand why.
I read every comment every reason under here and not one of them comes from a place derived from any truth or logic.
I will say I absolutely love this game and everything that comes with it so far, I am not a fan of the parent company or a tencent fan but we have to deal with them.
And personally I have been depressed as fuck about the world as a whole and this game has been a brief but nice break from “gestures at everything that exists”
But I have little hope for the long term because a bunch of imbeciles are relentlessly attacking the community.
I do have one and only one suggestion…
Ban everyone that has these crazy unhinged unproductive points of view from every medium that exists. Do everything to block them and go over board you can not reason with people that clearly don’t give a shit about reason
Also stop trying to reason with these people call for a ban on every post that is totally unproductive and hateful
Judd has replied to every thing everyone has bothered to complain about that can be replied to and clearly people don’t care. They don’t want a change they don’t want an alterative course of action that is possible they will scorch the earth and complain about the fire.
Stop replying to non productive posts everywhere don’t give in to these things all of us need to do this ignore them and enjoy the game.
Next season I will do my best to buy EVERYTHING I can afford no matter what, I just wish the haters would move on
Which I did when he stated that objects are also runtime based. Which wasn’t stated before, the wording in the post before that was a little ambigious and I didn’t take it in that meaning.
As soon as that meaning came through though I took it ‘at face value’ 
Despite it actually being wrong I realized!
Yeah, but with the object-based solution you can have 100 different cursors in a menu as a choice and the sub-cursors as well changing related to that one. Sure… the program still has a ‘default’ cursor but you would instead simply have a permanent ‘mouse-over’ cursor texture.
The 2 core issues are size and performance. Because you also cannot change the size of the cursor in Unity properly for some weird reason.
So… they wouldn’t have a unique cursor but a choice of a variety of them… like many many games provide. Especially shooters with the aiming reticle. Albeit there it’s not quite the same anyway as it’s not a cursor.
When the discussion topic is solely about ‘is it possible’ then yes… it makes sense. You gotta lay the foundation before the follow-up makes sense… the issue was that we didn’t get through the foundation part… so the roof - the actual issue - didn’t come through.
Yeah, I spoke about non. Hence the opposite.
Possible but unfeasable.
The statement was ‘it is not possible’
My stance was ‘here is the code, it is possible’.
The resolution was a wrong information leading to the same end-result.
The right information leads through circumstance to the same, that one wasn’t mentioned though.
If you don’t know something exists.
I mean… that’s kinda obvious, right?
Imagine trying to search for every possible circumstance ever imaginable and non-imaginable before doing anything… you won’t get far
So my point stands. Just because an issue exists and people talked about it doesn’t mean from the bazillion topics you’ve actually read the detailed reasoning rather then the - common - broad handwaving without any attached details.
Which in this situation is the case:
We cannot change the cursor as the unity engine doesn’t allow us to (this is the common end-point of the discussion, no technical aspects) → but here is the code which lets you do it individually (this is the follow-up commonly not mentioned) → and this is the technical reason as to why that one is non-functional in practicality (which came up in one thread to my knowledge and I haven’t seen it anywhere else yet, outside of here).
If the knowledge provision stops at ‘Point 1’ but you find ‘Point 2’ then obviously you’ll state ‘But hey, Point 1 isn’t right!’ unless you found ‘Point 3’.
Point 1 was discussed, I argued about Point 2, Point 3 was not mentioned outside of a link, which didn’t change the initial statement of possibility.
Stop expressing your opinions because it differs mine! I sure fucking hope you say nothing positive about this game as I have opposite feelings. How dare you dislike the actions of a person? Hitler did nothing wrong! Also no I am not saying EHG is Hitler just pointing out how dumb it is to ask people to stop having opinions just because you dont like them.
Yes, because using a dictionary attack on a search bar when you want to know about unity cursor issues is a totally reasonable, practical & absolutely not dumb as fuck suggestion.
You know, you’re right, I’m sure that every single Unity developer is a complete blithering idiot. Why don’t you post that suggestion on the Unity forums (I assume there is one), I’m sure every developer will be thanking you & praising your innovative solution!
I’ll wait.
This basically the softest language there is, based on the ideals they had and very much reads to me as “as long as our model and our intentions are working and sustainable”. If this is honestly the gospel that said they never even under no circumstances would charge for content, it’s all right there in “current plan”. Things changed for them.
2 Likes
Here’s the Steam Store instead:
- Zero Pay-To-Win
Last Epoch will never offer gameplay advantages by being able to spend real money. We believe in creating a fair environment for all players.
I would argue a class is exactly that and if it happens I have actually a cause for complaints at my consumer service here in Europe even.
If we’re still talking about ‘anything paid’ it’s fine, the soft language was for content expansions only.
Anything else? Sorry… no soft language available.
Now that is definitely more interesting. At that point it comes down to defending if a dlc class is paid to win.
There’s no pvp, there’s no MTX boosts, and the ladder doesn’t offer anything exclusive so it comes down to the definition of winning, or advantage. I have no idea how that would play out.
1 Like
P2W is not defined by competition itself since many many years. It’s defined by any environment which has the option for competing situations.
We’ve also got direct ones, which are the ladders and market competition itself.
And we got potential ones which are player-made races and competitions.
In both cases a class which does better then others in…well… anything does inherently become P2W hence.
And yes, it comes down to the definition of winning, that’s true.
Winning is when you compete actively or inactively against someone else. Be it with a direct result (visual representation on the ladder), gameplay upsides (more profit from the market) or outright doing better then you should otherwise in any form of actual competition (speedrun times for example).
1 Like
Both the ladder and the MG are subjectively doable by any class though, and by definition an expansion (which isn’t free to everyone, only those currently owning the game), may also have something exclusive to it that might count as an advantage, like zones that make leveling easier, dungeons with different loot, etc.
We also don’t even know if the class is going to be OP, or the state of the classes when it launches. I also don’t think making up your own competitions really qualifies as something within the scope of the company’s control so I doubt you could use that as an example.
Whether the ladder can be classified as a contest or competition may be up in the air, but then the obvious answer is to simply eliminate the ladder. I’d assume the people with the money are going to spend it on lawyers that will know the law way better than us here.
As the MG is unmoderated and uncontrolled by EHG, the advantage part of being able to list something sooner (I assume) which by design is exceptionally random to obtain in the first place, probably not a strong enough argument either. The players themselves have full control of what to list or buy and at what values, and as such should they choose not to buy from someone they suppose might have the dlc class for principle purposes, that would actually be a disadvantage. EHG simply doesn’t have control over the market at the moment, so unless they change that I don’t know if there’s something there.
Lastly you’d have to prove the class is better in all situations. If it had say an advantage in early game but not in late game, or vice versa, it’s a bit ambiguous. If it’s good in arena and bad in monos, or vice versa, then the p2w aspect would mean something different to each player. If there is wiggle room for what aspect counts as an advantage to different people it might just be considered “more of the same”.
Do you know what “should” means? My opinion isn’t wrong just because it doesn’t agree with yours.
Oh, I see. Irrelevant. Sure, that was a very difficult question. I wouldn’t have been able to give a clear answer either. How much new content are you missing if you can’t or don’t want the new purchasable class? It’s quite simple: You’re missing nothing except the class itself. You’re not missing any other new content.
Your “yes” is not 100% because you added a “but” and “but” always reduces everything that comes before it. I’ll take that as a “maybe.”
To be pay-to-win, you have to have an advantage. What is that advantage? And please answer this question with the understanding that we know nothing about the new class.
1 Like
Yep, and that’s the point.
If you provide a new class and this class provides a new way to play into the market or to advance to the top of the ladder then it’s inherently P2W already.
As for the expansion aspect:
Usually non-expansion players are distinct from expansion players, separate markets and ladders, unless EHG is utterly inept at least and they screw that up. It’s a baseline premise to do that.
So there it’s simply ‘another community’ rather then being in a better position. With a expansion one would expect new bases, new Affixes… new something at least you cannot get with the base game. If that’s not upheld then it’s solely a bit of story and at best viable enough to be Cycle content. So we gotta differ between that, it’s got to provide the perceived value after all, huge extras.
Yep, that’s true.
But any synergy overseen by the devs would have the potential to bring it there.
And we can absolutely expect it not to be the only class ever created, right? So the first might be fine… what about the second? The third?
And throughout all updates over the lifetime of the game… all those classes… not a single one is allowed to be at the top ever or it becomes P2W.
It’s not a snapshot in time, it’s a perpetual situation which is extremely problematic to uphold and not in the capability of EHG anyway… or any dev actually, it’s nonsensical amounts of effort for little return.
It’s 100% not up in the air for that.
If you compete in any form against another human being, be it directly, indirectly or even solely through social standing makes it a competition. Not a contest… but a competition.
Live-service games are inherently a competitive environment. Unless you screw up the live-service aspect even more then EHG did… and they already did that surprisingly much
Unlike in a SP game you’re commonly expected or even enforced to work with or against other people, hence you’re competing with them.
In games like WoW we got the open PvP areas, we got grouping for dungeons, we got raids, you need to have a baseline ability and gear level to do them and hence you’re competing with others for those places.
Then we got markets which are inherently snowballing a small portion of people. First providers get resources to stay ahead of following people. First access to good provided gear others can’t afford which then causes more market power to provide more to get even more. Every single market has that. So MG alone is already a guaranteed competition at all times.
We got ladders, leaderboards, scoreboards.
We got first-clear scenarios, which are also a unofficial competition. Like Uberroth first-kill.
Then we got actual competitions, be they official or unofficial. Supported or unsupported. As long as they can uphold the fairness in some way (Account/character SSF as example) you inherently have the environment to hold them and hence once again… win because of it.
There is - and never should be - visibility for who is listing items. Hence this doesn’t apply anyway.
One situation. Not all. One is enough.
Stated in my answer in this post above with the discussion about competition.
If you have a single upside in any form of competition then it is by definition ‘Pay 2 Win’.
Market.
Leaderboard.
Directly setup competition of any kind.
And even indirect competition of social position without a direct setup.
If the new class provides a different way to play the market or monos, then that’s not strong enough to say see it’s OP. Just because they do the same thing different doesn’t establish a case for p2w. They would have to objectively be better, not just because you feel like they are. It has to be measurable. If they beat out 2 of the 5 current classes, that could reflect the 2 classes are undertuned rather than the new class being overtuned.
If it’s not a snapshot, but perpetual, then by that definition they would have the ability to patch it and therefore it wouldn’t be p2w. Why? Because filing a case against them for explicit reasons could see those reasons change between the file date and the court date. It becomes impossible to control. You would need to be able to prove they intentionally made the class pay to win, and unless you had hidden chat logs or messages or any sort of physical evidence, it becomes a he said she said scenario, and game companies are notorious at not getting things exactly right from the outset. At that case it’s really easy to post “this character came out a little overturned and we are working on correcting it.” Intent has to be proven.
I would argue that live service games aren’t inherently competitive. I genuinely do not care how or what other people do in LE. Their achievements, playstyle, ladder rankings, corruption rankings, etc does not affect anything of how I play the game. I didn’t buy the game expecting to compete with anyone. MG? Not interesting to me. The problem is the ambiguity. You can’t say it’s inherent when there can and will be a section of the player base who do not care. The fact a lot of people play offline is a very solid defence for that, they and legacy players have opted out, and if you opt out it isn’t mandatory. Nobody in LE is expected or enforced to participate in the ladder or the MG.
Neither here nor there but that’s how the market already works. A meta class reaches endgame and floods the market with overly expensive high value legendaries. A new class doesn’t change that. The season changing doesn’t change that. If you cannot prove that the person listing the items are using the new classes, you cannot claim they have an unfair advantage because you have no proof they are using that class for said advantage. You’d basically have speculation.
If “unofficial” competitions were the liability of the company, that would open up literally any gaming company to being sued. There is absolutely no way you could tie this to EHG. If there was ever a situation that someone won a case based on unofficial competitions against the developer or publisher, I cannot image how fast the entire gaming industry would collapse.
I would argue right now that there are classes that are better at certain scenarios. A clear example is a heavy blinding thicket build. Absolutely monstrous walking simulator in monos. Less affective against abby. Unless the new class is just top of the class in every possibly way, you can point to any aspect of the game they are poor at an an example of how they are not pay to win. One is not enough, particularly when the concept of winning in this game is a clearly personal goal. If how you win is subjective, it’s hard to define it.
You could never prove that everyone cares about the ladder, or MG, or monos, or Abby, but it would be VERY easy to find examples against that. Ambiguity in law is too flimsy. That’s why I said it depends on how they define winning or advantage. You would have to have a very clear definition of it, at which point it’s easy to try to find the holes where it doesn’t apply to that definition.
1 Like