My Account
× My Account Media Forum Supporter Packs

Last Epoch Forums

Choice permanence

I just want to say up front that I am really enjoying the game as it is, and this is my opinion after having reached the current end game on 2 characters of different classes and seeing the same frustrations between each of them.

So I keep seeing the term “choice permanence” or “developers want it that way” pop up when people are suggesting changing how things like mastery, skill point caps, the leveling curve with regards to point gain and such works. These discussions come up quite often and people say the developers want it that way, then most discussion stops.

Can I just say that verbally vomiting to people that “devs said they want choices to be impactful or have a sense of weight” to someone suggesting a change is a really poor argument?

What the developers want isn’t important. Period. We as players are the consumer so what we want matters, within reason. If you as a player don’t like the way the system works, then make a post and are told devs want it this way or that, then what are you going to do? You’ll stop playing because what you want in a game isn’t what the devs want and it makes the game less fun for you.

Developers keep pushing the idea of choices having weight. I like the idea that choices should have weight, but choices having weight needs to be reworked. Choices are much more impactful when they have drawbacks. “This skill gains X% more area, but Cooldown is increases by Y%” is a great and impactful choice. I am giving up cooldown for more area. I want to cover my screen with my cast, but I won’t be able to do it as often. This is an impactful choice.

Not having enough points to make the skill work a specific way is not an impactful choice. Skills being labeled with specific damage types to keep them underwhelming (looking at you disintegrate) is not impactful. Passive trees that shoe horn you into a specific play style is not impactful.

Many of the mastery skills are lackluster. These skills come off as though they should feel like an ultimate skill that you really would benefit from working into your build. Right now they feel like an added skill that may or may not be useful if you just so happen to be building around that type of damage or spec. Let’s take meteor for example. I tried it a bit and read through all the passives and knew it was useless for my build. I think something that comes with a class mastery should have more options to it than anything else available aside from the passive tree itself. If I am going lightning sorcerer, what do I get from my mastery skill? Nothing. I feel like the mastery skills should come with very diverse trees that can emphasize all the different play styles the class has available. I think an example is that meteor gets a node that changes it’s damage type to lightning, and instead of calling meteors, it calls a large lightning strike that deals about the same damage. All fire damage on the tree is converted to lightning. I could see the same for a cold version with a glacier that comes up out of the ground.

I see people saying that they (devs) want choices to have weight, but the execution behind “choices should have weight” feels bad. Currently my choices are “do I make the skill work the way I want and give up damage,” “do I get damage and only get half the effect of the skill I wanted,” or “do I even have enough points to make the skill work how I want it to?” The last option isn’t even a choice.

I love the idea of how the skill trees work. It’s on the right track, but I think the execution is lacking. Skill trees should change the way a skill works. Damage should come from the passive trees and gear. I believe that this distinction would make it not only easier for players to build around, but also easier to balance. I agree that things like buffing modifiers within 4 seconds or knockback should be on the skill tree, but I don’t think defining effects such as casts on target instead of on self or more projectiles, should be locked so deeply behind other nodes like penetration or things that largely won’t change a build like spark charge.

These skill defining nodes are what make these skills fun for people. People want to modify their build to work a specific way and then need to find damage from other sources. This is how games like this work. You find the build you want, then you find the damage and such from other sources like gear or passive trees.

Passive tress feel to me like I don’t actually have nearly as many options as it seems on first look. I see all these nodes, but when I really sit down and say, ‘okay which nodes should I take to make my build actually do damage’ I find that I don’t really have all that many options… Flat damage here, penetration there and base stats of course. I originally wanted to run an ignite build. I quickly found that I really will not have damage if I run that. If I want damage over time, bleed has much more options and poison has an absurd amount of damage in comparison. I figured when I picked sorcerer I’d get enough elemental damage and such to really make an ignite build shine. Instead I found that I can proc it only very slightly easier, and only barely make it last longer (from 4 seconds to 5.38). It only lasts long enough to get 1 extra proc of damage. Ignite in comparison to poison is laughable. Bleed is good because the options to get more bleed damage are plentiful.

There are a lot of issues with the game, but that’s why this is the beta. We get an option to try out things and bring up the questions and points or issues that we see while playing or after reaching the end of current content. The problem is that saying, “devs want it this way” doesn’t do anyone any favors, devs or players. I don’t give a flying ____ what the developers want. I am sure their investors don’t either. What I care about is what is fun and what keeps me coming back for more. What doesn’t keep me coming back for more is other players removing potential discussion about the pros and cons of each topic by telling people, ‘no the devs want it that way.’ Okay, I’ll take my play and money elsewhere in that case.

TL;DR: “The devs want it that way” is not a good argument and doesn’t lead to constructive discussion on feedback. Stop using it.

9 posts were merged into an existing topic: Skill Level cap is simply too low

A vote has been moved.

I am honestly fine with the current curve of skill point gain and respec since you can get exp fast near the current end game.

My biggest point is that there are flaws, and that people need to not just spew up what the devs say as their argument because it is counter intuitive to the discussion.

Though I would like to see more skill changes with the choice weight changes I mentioned previously in skill trees and damage being more focused to passives.

This just shows your lack of knowledge of how the system works. To make a game, any game, you need to get investors to give you the money. No money, no new game. If investors see that players want a game to go in this direction, and it’s going the opposite, they will certainly take their money and leave and game will be no more. Consumers won’t pay for the game and investors will lose their return from their investment. The difference in a game and a film is the role of the consumer. A consumer plays an active role for a game, while a passive role for a movie. A movie is a story that a consumer just enjoys and it is on the storyteller and creator to make it good. A game has an active component to it and should only be compared in a very loose sense, because if you want a game that will grow and live to become something more, then you’re going to have to accept the will and wishes of those that use said game.

It is their game (all 36~ of them), but it is my choice to buy it and if they don’t have enough of a consumer base, the game won’t survive. As such, my opinion of how the game should work overall (not the design or balance simply the choice available to me as a player) are far more important than the developers. Keep in mind that this isn’t an indie game someone is working on solo for a specific vision and to tell a story, but a full company trying to strike out and make itself.

I never said more skill points in this discussion. I said I would like to see damage nodes moved to the passive tree. I would like to see more ‘X effect but Y negative effect’ options, and I said I wanted to see skills have more diversity within their classes (something that no one would complain about, who doesn’t want more options???)

By having more of the ‘X effect but Y negative effect’ we’ll have more choices with actual weight, rather than this pseudo choice that lends to the “best build is this one” issue where we’ll simply see choosing these specific nodes makes the builds best and everyone chooses that build with no true diversity. Skill trees should focus on changing the core mechanics of the skills while the actual damage is gain from your passives. It feels like this is the intent, but it doesn’t seem like they fully dove in on this decision and instead did a half damage half mechanics idea. Whether this is due to not having enough ideas on how to change mechanics of a skill, time to implement such ideas without going over budget, or simply capability is unknown to me.

Seems you are mixing things up here.

You made a general thread that you don’t like the skill system in general. And you got some answers from people that disagree with your opinion. That’s life.

Please, don’t be offended because people don’t share your opinion.

You could have discussed on the topic you already created. Instead you make a new one complaining about the opinion of other players. That’s not really necessary.

To answer to your complaint:
Nobody just stated “The devs want it so” alone. It was in the context of why people like it how it is. On those of us who defend specific design decisions - like masteries being permanent or skills having only 20 levels - don’t do this because “the devs want it so”. They / we don’t because we like it.

But you also make some valid points here.

Like mastery skills only suiting certain builds of a mastery class. Or desintegrate being weak. But this has nothing to do with the skill system in general. These are examples for flaws specific skills have and what needs to be addressed. You wont find many people that will argue with you on this topic.

But you mix balance and design issues that can objectively be identified as issues with design choices of the game that are very controversial and rely on flavour. Your good arguments are hidden between you complaints, sadly.

1 Like

It isn’t the players opinion when they simply verbally vomit the same thing the developers say. They haven’t built their own opinion, they are just going with what they are told.

And I have seen it over and over. Instead of players discussing the pros and cons, they say devs want it this way, and discussion gets ended because there are no meaningful arguments for or against their opinions.

When players just say what they are told, I may as well be doing just that. They aren’t saying why they agree or disagree with the suggested change, they are saying devs wanted this. That is not meaningful discussion.

I am a customer and I disagree with you on the topic of general skill system being bad. What now?

I’m not saying the skill system is bad. I like the system. I don’t like the current execution. You are saying you disagree, but not why. This is not constructive. The points that players have made thus far are that they like the damage options being on the tree and that it is a cost to choose this effect, but when I see builds and watch people pick skills, I see the reason why they take most nodes. They take a node to get an effect, or to get to another node. So why am I taking damage that is negligible over another node? Because it is in my way. Most pathing for skills will be with the objective to get the skill to work in a specific form. I don’t see why those nodes between me and that primary effect node couldn’t be some other effect like slow, a small haste buff, or an aura. Leave the protection shred, the damage, and the penetration to the skill tree so that the tree feels more impactful, and the skills feel more impactful.

Sorry, but that is absolutely bullshit. No need to discuss anything with you any further.

Have a good life, bye.

2 Likes

I work in the industry. I understand exactly how it works. What I said was I wish more creators would stick to their actual vision and either fall on their faces (lose the investment, have the game panned, etc) or soar high (achieve success, make enough money to make another game/movie, etc.). But you want to instruct me on how the industry works you go right ahead. I’ll grab my popcorn.

See ya, sheep. Just like those guys that repeat the dev statements, you never gave any reasons why you thought my suggestions were bad or why the current system is better, you simply said I like it how it is. You either don’t like change, or you’re doing what you’re told and not coming up with your own argument or decisions. This doesn’t contribute meaningfully so it isn’t like I’ll miss ya.

Maybe this sounds crazy to you, but you can have same opinion as developers. This was completely uncalled for.

3 Likes

You said you worked in film. Game industry is not film industry, which is it? Also, even if you work in design or programming, that doesn’t mean you understand the contracting and money side of the industry beyond the superficial level. I’ll lose my shit if you come back saying you work in contracting or have extensive experience there. lol

I could get behind this if it was one person working on his dream game, but not with a company that has approximately 36 employees to try and keep their jobs. Once you add in another person and their livelihood it becomes about more than just that dev and his dream for the game. You are now in charge of those others and making sure this venture you set out upon is worth it for them. That’s sort of a matter of opinion I guess and it really doesn’t matter as it is beyond the scope of what I wanted to point out.

My main point was to point out that the game has issues and suggestions of change shouldn’t be pushed to the side with claims of how the devs want it. It is in beta after all. I would expect it to have issues. I would expect it to change quite a bit even before full release. This is the best time for the devs to see the consumer opinion and try to mesh it with their goals for the game. All the other issues I brought up are mostly things I’ve read on the forums and my own thoughts on how things could change in the future.

You can, but I would expect a reason to go along with it or a why. Saying the same thing they said without a why behind it isn’t constructive, which is what he did in a thread about not doing that exact thing. Excuse me for being curt with him after it and dismissing him.

This whole thread is kinda strange

But this quote alone brings me to not comment on any specifics OP mentioned.

This is almost like a punch into the devs face.

EHG is one of the most dedicated developers i have ever interacted with. I don’t know any of those guys personally but i am 100% sure that most of them don’t just treat this whole project “just as a job”, but as a project they give blood and sweat for.

Maybe it’s just me but i think OP just has a problem when people don’t have the same opinion, he tries aggressively to devalue any other posts or opinions.

Anyway i will leave this thread were it is, as i don’t thing that there is any valueable feedback in here.(Maybe it is, but just at it’s core, and the whole presentation is kinda bad)

2 Likes

This was my answer to your previous topic. I don’t see the odds…

Calling me “sheep” because I like the games systems as they are (some, not all) is not a very good argument imho.

You are just an example of overconfident people that don’t respect other views than your own. It’s a very poor discussion.

The whole thread here adds nothing to the game. You brought up some good points on the game, but the only thing you do is to tell people that their opinions do not matter.

The entertainment industry, whether music, gaming, film or friggin’ YouTube, is governed by the same types of commerce rules. That’s why they’re all lumped under the “ENTERTAINMENT” industry. I know how funds are raised. I know how audiences are polled. “Beta” release for a video game is the exact same thing “advanced screenings” are for film. See the biggest issue with your rebuttal here, and the biggest issue with your initial post, is you seem to think YOU know everything. And when someone doesn’t agree with you, states why, you can’t handle it. It’s okay. As Raw said, nice chatting with you. I’m going to go watch something else now with my popcorn.

1 Like

Less than 48 hours ago the thread Skill Level cap is simply too low was created. We now have a thread that discusses choice permeance with a focus on skills, rather than discussing, among other things, respeccing skills being “a pain in the butt”. The two threads manifestly discuss the same topics, and thus one is superfluous. They were also created by the same person.

Upon reading this thread, it is immediately clear that it is the less polite of the two, with unhelpful posts such as assertions that another’s perspective is “bullshit” and namecalling such as calling others “sheep”. I need to be clear that the forum’s Code of Conduct is not a list of suggestions; those who insist on breaking the rules will find their posting privileges revoked.

Nobody has received a temporary or permanent forum suspension due to their posts in this thread, however this post should be considered a reminder to follow the rules linked to above - particularly for those whose behaviour I have specifically alluded to.

As this thread is being locked and the original is not - and as they are ultimately two parts of the same whole - I will be moving posts there to salvage constructive points that merit remaining part of the discussion. I would appreciate the hostility that has arisen in this thread being left behind - otherwise, I will be forced to begin handing out suspensions.

I would like to note that we do welcome meta threads such as criticizing forum moderation or offering commentaries on trends in feedback (and responses to feedback) on the condition that they do not refer to individual incidents or people. Had this thread been less hostile, and had it left the previous subjects such as skill respecs behind, it would likely have remained open.

6 Likes