I don’t think you’ve read his statement correctly. He said:
and
He clearly said “brought me to 300k” and “earning me 8k gold” (for the full echo+inventory sale).
2 Likes
So let the game change, so it wants you to? Honestly though, only the same 10-20 people on the forums care about this being an issue. The rest of us want EHG to change the game. LE wasn’t about alts before; there is barely anyone playing!
5 characters a season is fine for the majority. If it isn’t…then you are a long term devoted player that, with all due respect, means you don’t really matter because you play the game anyway. EHG can cater to the few, or the many.
Easy answer for a business.
Same kind of nitpick I was mentioning in my post.
it is a net positive. More people playing is ALWAYS better than less. That’s like saying “exercise is bad because sometimes you get injured”.
There are downsides to everything, but evolution and giving players what they want is never bad. If it ends up being terrible, they can change it back. Everyone on these forums would come back anyway. Most people on forums are not average Joes.
Actually yes it was. EHG basically balanced the game around it. When u look at the systems in place. It is built for alts.
Thats one thing including myself that many players love about LE.
This goes back to what people where saying about identity of the game and the types of players EHG wants. EHG seemed to be aiming at a said player base. With mastery respecing it now seems they are aiming at the masses. Which wasnt thier philosophy for the last 5+ yrs.
Truth is not all games are for everyone. Doesnt mean the community should want it to change so its a game for them.
GGG does this right. Keeping to thier philosophy and sticking to the player types they want playing thier game.
Hence why alot of time players will tell u either git gud or poe just might not be a game for u.
Tbh imo gaming community needs to learn to accept that a game just isnt for them. And not beg for things to change so it becomes a game for them
1 Like
Huh? The whole argument is the timeframe needed to grind it up, and how much time it takes for a CoF player. So wouldn’t you need the comparison for a MG player time-wise?
So:
Since DJ fixed it up well with what was meant, it not having a gold altar or gold reward included and being on the fairly low side of reward gold-wise… how about we rise the medium amount up to 11k gold per echo?
So a decently heavy played day for me is between 100-200 Echos, when I wanna be fast. Which would be the 50 mil on the market (fairly reliably because of quantity) Lets say 200… which is fairly unrealistic for price-checking on top… but in favor of CoF.
In CoF to acquire the 500k with 11k we would need ~45 Echos hence, while trying to get gold rewards.
If we compare it to the 200 for MG we would make a little less then 2,5 Mil in CoF equivalent in the same time.
That’s kinda a big difference, 20 times the difference from a flimsy example here.
Umh… yes… yes it was?
It also was still in 1.0 and 1.1? The times with the highest amounts of play-time for LE?
Also wo is ‘us’? Are you now speaking for other people? Do you belong to a large group having elected you their speaker and I missed it?
You can say there’s a large portion of players which shares the view you have and I’ll very much trust you on that, since it’s realistic, but don’t put the ‘us’ into your posts, you don’t have multiple personality disorder… and even if you do then they don’t count. 
As for another topic… it’s pretty presumptuous to arrive somewhere others were trying to help improve and make the best place possible for years when you weren’t even there yet, working towards a state where you even begin to take an interest into it… then storm in and say ‘Well, now I’m here, we’ll change it entirely!’ despite it being counter to what the people beforehand have helped built up without any remuneration in doing so. Heck… even investing into that thing to make it what it is.
So get off your high horse for a moment and step down to a common position and we can properly have an argument. You trying to simply stomp over everyone else is neither doing you nor your position any favors.
Majority? The majority is not always the most important group, actually the contrary in video gaming. Never was, never will be!
Only a fraction of players dedicates themselves to a single game long-term, be it returning or persistent. The vast majority doesn’t even see end-game.
So by your standard there we could demolish the complete end-game because it doesn’t matter anyway, the majority never goes into empowered monoliths, so it has no value.
Take good care of how you argue, there’s a chunk of good reasons as to how and why 5 character classes are sufficient and how to cause them to be enough or even too many available… but your argument definitely isn’t one of those there.
And that comment comes right into the top-tier list of ‘dumbest comments of the year’.
No… people leave when they become unhappy with something. They stay for a while even when disgruntled but will absolutely leave and be gone for good unless substantial changes happen. And some don’t come back even if they happen.
There’s 2 groups of players commonly for a game. The ‘core audience’. That group decides if a game stays alive. Lack it and you lack meaningful interaction on a relatively high qualitative level, since those know the in and outs of your product like the darn back of their hand. Is someone has a misconception they come and go ‘akshually!..’ and then you got a 20 page journal to read which causes everything to make sense… as long as the mental capacity to understand it is there.
And then you got the so called ‘tourists’. They come, they go. They showcase how ‘available’ your product is to the masses. There doesn’t exist a single game in history which stayed alive without their core audience, they go… your game becomes ‘hollow’ and risky, any small decision can cause massive fluctuations which you might never recover from. They pay you day in and out, tell every single smallest mistake made. The tourists simply ‘vanish’ wordlessly, no clues given, often incoherent nonsensical ramblings provided only… very few actual substancial information. You act in the complete dark for customer sentience hence.
A death sentence for a company in this sector.
Please… as a favor… don’t own a business Your potential customers will thank you if you never open one with that stance up there.
Factually wrong.
By that metric only mobile games have viability and all other games have no space in the market.
Not a single ‘AAA’ game… not a single PC game ever has even come close to the revenue of mobile games.
Here, for reference even.
So LE should be a mobile game then rather? Stomp the product, make a mobile game. More players is always better, right?
Absolutely untrue.
Yes, bad exercise is worse then none, because it can cripple you for life.
You’re right, downsides to everything, agreed. The upsides are often not worth it though.
Also evolution can be very bad. Every single mutation is based on evolution, it’s why so many people nowadays have allergies, one of the most likely reasons being that our immune system is used to dealing with deadly invading species like worms in our digestive tract, having nothing to fight against and hence overpreparing to then kill us by attacking non-dangerous things simply perceived as a threat… like a damn peanut.
And the same goes for ‘giving people what they want’. Plainly spoken… letting the ‘masses’ speak has proven detrimental in the history of humanity. The only issue is that we have no adequately better solution available. Intelligence can’t be properly measures and the variance in behaviour is so varied that a proper split would need to be upkept, but we have no clue which. But that would for example make a better decision making system then democracy.
Why? Because the medium IQ of the world is 100 and with 87 you’re considered ‘too mentally lacking to cause more positives then negatives no matter your working position’. And that doesn’t even take into consideration if you got all information about a topic or even informed information about a topic.
So also, utterly and entirely wrong.
It’s like taking candy away from a child. Ever tried that? The child will throw a tantrum, it’ll cause problems, utter havoc.
Don’t give the child the candy unless you want the child to consume the candy for good.
3 Likes
I think it’s better than leaving it as it was and telling players “sorry you’ll have to reroll”. There is no choice in that system at all.
I’ll admit I don’t really get the whole “my identity” issue. Even in D3 I have no issue recognizing when I’m using a speed T16 build, speed rift build or GR push build. Many times with different sets and skills. Would it enhance my experience to have to level the same class multiple times to get those separate min/maxed builds? Definitely not.
The remastering with a cost in LE is obviously much more strict than D3/D4’s armory system. And I don’t really see frequent remastering being worth it with gold costs, passive and skill changes, gear swapping and skill releveling. They have tons of ways to allow them to limit respeccing, increasing costs or cooldowns on access to them per character, and I trust them to handle any unexpected use of the remaster system.
1 Like
What does that have to do with my quote?
There are many valid arguments for both sides. That one isn’t one of them.
Adding an option to someone that doesn’t like that option isn’t a choice either.
Indeed, you don’t seem to understand. It’s not about knowing what build the character is. That’s just ridiculous.
It’s about making choices and saying “this character is special and different from the others because I made these choices that can’t be undone (or can’t be easily undone)”.
That’s fine. Players like different things. To me, though, D3 was extremely boring because it lacked replayability. Once I was done with DH I was done with that class entirely. No reason to replay it whatsoever. So I left. I played a week, maxxed the char, stopped playing.
It’s fine. As long as there are costs that limit that option, players are fine with it. As long as they are actual costs, not the equivalent of respeccing your passive tree, because that might as well be free for what it costs anyway.
You aren’t really arguing honestly are you? The existing system gives zero choice to all players. The new system gives a choice to all players, some of whom don’t like having choices.
1 Like
Haven’t there been repeated mentions of alternatives? With DJ actively speaking up for them too?
I mean… did I miss something there?
Mistakes happen, so an option to remedy a mistake is expected.
But choices matter so not devaluing them also is expected.
We can combine both and find a compromise. But plainly spoken… if you’re only going between ‘we need free willy-nilly re-rolls’ and ‘we can’t have any flexibility at all’ then I personally will immediately choose ‘no flexibility’ there. Because I like the replay value more then a fad-game to throw into the corner before picking up the next.
It was already mentioned: Rather then free re-spec a limited amount is viable. Which would take care of all issues.
It was also mentioned that acquisition of more re-specs beyond for example a single one to remedy a mistake with substantial effort involved would be a option.
The provided current state upcoming is not substantial as Gold is not only skewed between factions but also the acquisition over time is simply insanely high, making 500k or 1 mil yawn-inducing amounts for someone invested. And that’s top-end of the level range, lower it will not cost as much, actually it needs to be extremely cheap to even allow to do it during progression.
You mean as well as they handled MG? 
That’s how far I trust ‘adjusting implemented systems’.
Then read up what it means, it’s a mandatory aspect to even understand the discussion. You’re basically yapping at this point since the mentioned aspects are talking past the issue, not about it.
First of all… the first part is pure ‘BS’, it’s a very viable point.
You don’t like to be fixated in the mastery class, do you? So not giving you that option isn’t a choice, right? You want it changed?
Same damn position. So don’t be a hypocrite.
The second part: Yes.
Which is why the recommendation for a once time change or a limited amount of chances, fixed has been provided.
From me the option to do it with a one time change with providing a high effort option to acquire more changes being provided.
So then you have the option without ruining the part important to those caring about it. Basically a ‘both sides get their piece of cake option’.
Instead what you’re doing is this:
Asking for the whole cake, ignoring that others want part of it too.
Since the cake was baked it has not been in your posession, ever. ‘Mom’ (EHG) even told you you’re not allowed to even take a nibble at it. Now out of the blue ‘Mom’ takes away that cake and gives it to you out of the blue. Which… plainly spoken is a very crappy move already that is to be reprimanded. ‘Mom’ screwed up badly and we have no clue what she thinks, watching all of it going on.
Now you got the option to actually share the cake, and an agreement that a compromise would be best.
And here you sit, being a greedy thing now yelling ‘No, the cake is all mine now! You won’t get a single piece!’.
Good job Not.
2 Likes
I’m arguing more honestly than you are. I’m acknowledging that the other side exists and what they want and providing both alternatives and explanations on my side of it. You’re the one that only cares about your point of view and is dismissing everything else entirely.
The existing system doesn’t give a choice to those that want that choice.
The new system doesn’t give a choice to those that don’t want that choice.
The new system only gives a choice to those that don’t care too much either way and can do whatever they feel like.
The only thing that changed was who doesn’t have a choice.
The choice isn’t between “I want to respec” and “I don’t want to respec”. It’s between “I want respec in this game” and “I don’t want respec in this game”. They’re opposite and thus irreconcilable. The only alternative to either one or the other is a compromise of limited respeccing that won’t fully please either side but will please most.
People that don’t want respec (myself included) have been offering plenty of alternative ways to achieve this compromise, acknowledging the need other players feel for changing this.
People that want it (like you) have all just invariably been saying “Just don’t use it” and nothing else, always dismissing that for many this isn’t an actual option.
So who’s not arguing honestly?
2 Likes
I’m not so let’s move on
I understand what people mean by “identity” I just don’t understand why people care. And I never will. But I accept that they do care. I just think they are a tiny minority and we’ll see if any that are upset actually quit
Semantics. The new system gives a choice to everyone, that’s an objective fact. It gives an appealing choice to people that want it. And people that don’t care now my take advantage of it later. Those that don’t like respecs due to character identity will choose to not use it. Another choice.
1 Like
It’s not just semantics.
It’s like the previous example of adding a difficulty slider to Dark Souls games. People that actually like playing Dark Souls games (the “git gud” crowd) would definitely leave if a difficulty slider was implemented.
I don’t really understand the souls-like players, but I know that they exist and I don’t intend on ever trying to change their games. They’re just not for me.
Much like I never tried to make D4 a harder game. It’s a boring game and I’d rather simply not play it (or play it a couple days each season).
Because options (or the lack of them), change a game’s identity. And a game’s identity are what makes players choose to play that game or not.
I don’t think many players will leave LE because they are trying to create a compromise. The biggest complaints about the respec was because the trailer made it seem like there were no costs.
We won’t know if they actually intended the system to be like it is or if they changed after the player complaints, but either way, while flawed, the current system does have limitations. So they are creating the compromise I talked about already, trying to please both sides.
However, if they did implement a fully free respec system, you can be sure that there would be players leaving. Even as it is, it’s quite possible a bunch of players will play less time overall than they would otherwise.
Either way, the cat’s out of the bag and there’s no putting it back. The only option now is to fine tune the system.
3 Likes
So why isn’t it a option if you don’t like it the only one who can make you use it is yourself
Why worry what i or anyone is doing in the game it won’t affect you
2 Likes
This is the kinda stuff thats just false.
“There is a gamebreaking build dont nerf it, it does not effect you”
So they have 2 options, nerf it, or balance the game around it. if they balance around it, it effects me.
Mastery swapping does infact have potential knock on mechanics. and if those pop up, it is getting made harder to do, this has already been stated. And it already is looking to be decently steep at 500k around level 80 or 85, it wont stop all hot swapping, but it will make atleast CoF players question whether swapping is worth it.
they could easily make it 5m or 50m at level 100, then lots of players would simply not be able to do it unless they really needed to/wanted to.
This is an online game, and so mechanics that change the rules of the game 100% effect everyone, and saying otherwise is just not caring about the effects which is not the same as it having no effect.
“Cheating does not effect you, why are you crying!!!”
3 Likes
And you don’t need to, you just have to aknowledge it. More isn’t needed.
You have one writing to you right now. The reduction of replay-value for me combined with my perceived miffed state at MG, the boss-ward and the overall state of itemization make it so 1.2 is the last chance EHG has from my side.
If the gameplay is not so substantial that it basically revolutionizes how good the game feels I likely won’t play until either the competition has another major screw-up going on or quite hefty changes happen over time with cause it to change the gameplay feel for me.
Wouldn’t be my first time I turn my back on a product I paid money for because they - in my eyes - divert too heavily from what I bought into.
Blizzard has lost me as a customer (D4 was the last straw of incompetence, heard they turned it around, not interested though anymore), EA has, Ubisoft has, The Bazaar has (unless the pull back their scummy changes) and several more.
Yes, it is an objective fact!
A fact which turns away those which see it as a detriment
You should really learn to understand the reasonings behind it. Otherwise you might get another D3-like game… just not with the franchise power behind it. Which is a death-wish on the industry.
And it’s not Semantics. Game identity does a ton more then just ‘giving choices’. It’s a method to provide a clear-cut difficulty, a clear-cut progression rate, a method of allowing developers to balance a game without too many influences playing into it.
FromSoftware couldn’t have ever created a properly balanced Souls-Like game which conveys your character struggling against those old beasts leftover from before the world was basically broken… because you can’t design the length of the fight properly as it would need to showcase everything to the players no matter the difficulty. Making it repetitive and ‘spongy’ at higher difficulties or nonsensically quick at lower ones, failing to convey it at all, which is a major aspect of the whole genre as a good souls-like conveys themes with their boss-fights.
The first reason is because it makes feel the effort of playing another character up for dozens of hours a felt ‘waste of time’ since I have the option to switch my build to something new now. Even if the cost is substantial I can completely circumvent the campaign and the Monolith to directly dive only into end-game as long as my class is the same.
Instead of doing 3 variety I hence do 1.
That reduces my time before I’ll ‘run out of options’.
Also I personally need a limitation provided by a game. It’s like the difference in Minecraft to build a house in survival mode… or in creative. Yes, I can make a bigger and more nicely looking home but there is no ‘effort’ attached to it. I didn’t need to go mine the blocks from the ground, don’t need to deal with how I’ll actually reach the space where I need to add blocks, didn’t have to handle food and storage to get everything properly prepared.
Which is why I like ‘Vintage Story’ a lot more too… Minecraft but more ‘invested’ everything is harder and slower to achieve… but the reward of managing to do something is hence also increased.
A goal achieved without obstacles to overcome has no value.
It’s not a challenge, it’s an outcome which can’t be circumvented simply, hence it’s not worth mentioning and doesn’t provide enjoyment.
As for worrying what others think:
I play MG. I’m in a market environment. Anything I don’t do to get ahead of the competition will cause me to lag behind and loose profits, hence only be able to provide items when they lost value already since supply has increased and demand isn’t keeping up.
So yes, what others in the game can or can’t do does indeed affect me as well.
You didn’t bother reading the thread, did you? It’s been explained multiple times already.
1 Like
The post was overall about LE, but the segment being quoted was specifically about Grim Dawn.
For clarification since it’s caused confusion
Erasculio said:
I said:
This entire paragraph is in specific reference to Grim Dawn having 45 Mastery Combinations that are permanent. You cannot change them without using 3rd party software or editing the save file manually. Despite the many requests for an official way to Respec your Mastery choices the devs remained firm that they will never implement it and if you really want to change your Mastery there are tools available.
I mentioned the gender of your character and your Mastery being the only permanent choices, but DJ reminded me that (per difficulty) you’re also given the permanent choice of which blacksmith you’ll use and which faction you’ll support. I also mentioned that LE doesn’t have access to those same tools as Grim Dawn, so an official Respec isn’t as big of a “never implement it.”, but keeping the Mastery choice still being impactful is important to a lot of people. And DJ, again, rightly pointed out that because LE offers the Cycle content in true offline you can easily edit your save file to change your Mastery just like Grim Dawn by playing True Offline.
That’s exactly how much they brought me as a COF player. I play True Offline so I just vendor’d them lol.
That’s a fair argument. Which brings me back to Respec Tokens. Get one when you select a Mastery (so you start with 1 free Respec). Get one for finishing the campaign (I assume most new players will want to complete the campaign at least once, and for returning players it’s a fairly low bar to get a 2nd Respec Token). Then any future Respec Tokens are locked behind the dungeon. If you used two Respec Tokens and still want to change your Mastery (not build, Mastery) then you can take the time to clear a dungeon.
Edit: consolidated my replies to avoid spam.
1 Like
If there is someone who can’t hit an elephant with a shotgun a point blank range said person can still love FPS games. Just having little time isn’t changeing what someone likes. Telling ppl to play candy crush if they have no time is like telling ppl to drop what they like if they aren’t 100% fit to do whatever they like. With this mindset there would be no change and only stagnation. That’s why I think it’s narrowminded.
For example I’m fat and I change my eating habbits bit by bit and I start to lose weight. If I take your aproach I only should eat unhealthy stuff because it’s hard for me to lose weight. that’s a bit flawed from my point of view given the fact that I like to get rid of a pound here in there even if it’s hard ^^.
I get your point. But what I believe Llama was getting at is that you’d never tell FromSoft to make Souls-games easier for people who struggle with them. So why should people tell EHG to change their game to make it more accessible to them?
There’s a certain level of Accessibility that I believe every game should strive to achieve and that’s “make it so that anyone can play it.” things like colorblind modes for the colorblind, subtitles and closed captioning for hard of hearing, key rebinding and controller support for physical impairments, etc. Make the game physically playable to as many people as possible. From there, it’s up to the developer to design their game to attract their target audience. And I’ve yet to see a single video game with the concept of “our target audience is everyone” succeed.
For example, a theme park MMO like WoW or FFXIV has a completely different target audience to the hardcore grinders that play games like Black Desert Online. WoW and FFXIV may implement features that appeal to those gamers, but they’re hardly the focus. Using ARPG’s as an example, PoE was made to target the people who wanted a D2-like experience when the only other mainstream option was D3, and that was not good on release. PoE is very different from D2, but it’s far more similar to D2 than D3 is and it’s free to play making it even more accessible to players who have a budget compared to the AAA market price of D3. Grim Dawn came later to fill the gap for people who preferred Titan Quest over Diablo.
I’m kind of rambling at this point due to insomnia, but I guess the TLDR is that trying to cater to everyone will ostracize more people than it brings from my experience.
2 Likes
nope i read it and it still don’t make sense . If people don’t use it nothing will change for them they can carry on playing as they do now.
without it i would not do seasons as i like to play a lot of different builds .
But now i might do the next season
2 Likes