× Media Forum Supporter Packs

Last Epoch Forums

Remastering Masteries: overhauling the passive system


#21

Hmm. It’s heartening to see that things are on the table to be scrapped and redone if you don’t think they’re working as-is, rather than cling to them (although that is obviously what an alpha is for, after all).

I agree with grimnok somewhat; the old system was certainly unique, however to me it was only a “oh, that’s a mildly interesting way to go about it” rather than an “oh wow, this is really cool” type of unique. I think part of that for me stemmed from the old system suffering a form of “okay, I put points in, but not much changed” for levels at a time as you expanded your axes (yes, stats went up, but not much visual progress was made in cases where you focused on one axis first, for example). Of course, a similar thing can happen in PoE for example, however with that tree you at least have a clearer visual track of the progress made towards your notables at each level.

I also noted that a number of the nodes didn’t feel like they would be impactful or game-changing enough to be worth picking up. This combined with the axes in a way that meant I might want a particular pair of axes for certain stats but not really want many of the notables between them. Currently installing the alpha client so I’ll have to see if the nodes still feel this way in a different system. Thinking about it currently, however, I suspect even if the nodes are the same, needing to pick up nodes as stepping stones in the new system is going to feel less awkward to me than allocating axes then saving node points because you don’t like what you have access to right now.

While the new system is less differentiated/unique to Last Epoch I think it will likely be easier to use for most people, and thus better for at least new players. Complex systems in ARPG’s are all well and good, however if they feel clunky at the same time they could wind up doing more harm than good. So overall I support the change despite the loss of the unique system.


#22

I see the improvement with this new system as the ancient had several issues (not easy to understand, hard to balance, etc).
But I also regret losing a truely unique system to get a quite generic one (moreover, I’m not a big fan of having to spend 5 points in nodes I don’t necessarily like to unlock next tier).
A more hybrid solution could have been a system like TQ/GD.


#23

[quote quote=9877]I don’t actually care for this change to be honest. Your main reasoning seemed to be that people didn’t get it inuitively. Well, i guess that’s a problem if you’re making a mobile game for .99 but this is a ARPG. ARPG fans like depth, look at the success of PoE and D2. Immensely deep games and customizations. I don’t think that is a good reason at all.

Secondly, you had a VERY unique system that I personally thought was very inspiring, and brought something to the table no other game does.

Sadly, it just seems that you’ve adopted what every other game does. In this way you have diminished the style and what sets you apart. It’s decisions like this that make you just another diablo clone, unfortunately.

I would love to see you reconsider the design and implement the axes again with some improvements, rather than just throw out the whole design concept.

Just my 0.02.[/quote]

My interpretation was that it was not only not intuitive, but that it didn’t really mesh with the mastery system either.

Personally, I didn’t like the axis/grid system because it was much harder to convey how much investment I really needed to get some node I was interested in. Do i need 4 more axis points, or is it 6? The very thing that made it unique made it hard to get information quickly, which can be frustrating and break the flow of action. I did like that it effectively combined old school attribute points and passive points into one system.

I would love to see a bit more iteration on this system though. While it wouldn’t be unique, having a mastery bar (with similar bonuses to those that were on the axis points) for each mastery (akin to GD’s system) and granting more than 1 point (either every level, or on some interval) might make it more interesting. That way you don’t have to go back to more than one point type, but give players more decisions (do I advance the mastery for future nodes/skills or do I invest in one of the nodes I’ve unlocked?).


#24

Too many “passives” /equal/ in the same tree with different name…example, beastmaster.

Agile Pack…dogde
Emanation of the hare…doge
Writhe…doge

Any plan on redesing that?

Any plan on redesing passive with weapons? holding a two-handed %crit o something like that? the trees need more depth.

Kinda boring…all doing the same thing.


#25

There’s a lot of placeholder nodes at the moment.

It takes time to implement support for nodes doing different things. As one example, I believe that currently we can’t do somthing like “Chance to inflict Bleeding on Crit.” This is obviously something we’ll have implemented later in development, at which point it’ll replace some existing nodes. This early in development we do have a need for placeholders.


#26

A related question I’ve been wondering is about the Lock nodes themselves.

Currently, they feel rather underwhelming for something that seems like a major character choice. I know that the passives and skills that are above the lock node can help make the decision more impactful, but I’m curious if the bonuses those nodes currently give are also placeholders.

An example from POE of the kind of power that decision could have is the Scion notables that give a broad grouping of each asendencies bonuses. They are a bit overloaded, but something similar that better helps define the mastery classes identity and makes the player immediately feel the impact of that decision would be awesome.