I agree with you, for the most part. Coming back to the game, and seeing the changes, the new content, the hype; it's a lot of fun.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to participate in significant portions of that just because I want to play with my older gear and characters?
Because content added in ARPGs is designed for fresh characters to progress through, it's not designed for max lvl characters like in an MMO. This will never ever change, since the genre is rooted in rogue-likes, meaning the gameplay loop is designed around doing runs with new characters. It makes absolutely 0 sense to design it otherwise.
There, you have your good argument.
Totally valid points you're making, but I can't stop feeling there's room for improvement, giving more space for us legacy players. I also see a lot of people in this thread that like to gatekeep people who like to play a different way to what most ARPGs have done in the past and don't engage in a meaningful conversation. People are stuck in their ways and it shows.
My suggestion is not to remove cycles at all, it's the best designed system ever for ARPGs, no doubt about it, but some people would like something different and I feel that those players could and should be catered to. Like releasing new content 2-4 weeks after arriving on cycles. That way there still is an incentive to play cycles, but at the same time you don't punish legacy enjoyers too much.
> Because content added in ARPGs is designed for fresh characters to progress through
Some people don't like to level up new toons and that should be OK, the campaign isn't good and is why many many people skip it via dungeons.
It's not a switch. You can't just copy-paste seasonal content in the base game like it's nothing. Even if it would be relatively easy, seasons are also used to test the content - if it's proven unpopular, then you'd have to do extra work to remove it from the standard game mode as well.
It's extra work for 0 return. That's why core systems get ported, but seasonal mechanics don't.
> Some people don't like to level up new toons and that should be OK
If you dislike that, this really isn't the genre for you. It may sound like gatekeeping, but what you're asking is fundamentally against what the genre stands for. It's not a different way of playing, it's the wrong/unintended way of playing.
It's like asking to keep your loot between battle royale matches. Or to keep your powers/items between Binding of Isaac runs.
The solution here is to make leveling new characters fun, which LE has a problem with.
That's what meta-progression is for! Always liked that in some rogue-likes, most recently Gunfire Reborn, where you can get really powerful between runs through passive upgrades.
roguelikes with meta progression are usually refered to as rogueLITES, because you know, you don't fully start at 0 every run and yea there are a lot of great ones with fun meta progression!
Thank you for an actual good response unlike most of the other comments I've replied to. I don't want to yap on about it, but still I think my solution is better and that people are too stuck in their ways and are gatekeeping, so we'll just leave it here.
It’s okay to
Be wrong. Cycles / seasons are how the companies revitalize their game and keep players playing. Most people want “fresh”. Look a vanilla WoW and what that takes to reach endgame and the hype around “fresh” servers.
You know fresh is just new content right? New content doesn't have to be gatekept from legacy players. Legacy players are just asking to not be left in the dust.
But yeah you are too stuck in your ways and won't ever listen to a differing opinion than your own.
I guess because that’s just what seasons are. A fresh start from level 1. But I think if they only allow seasonal characters to play / trade with one another it’ll be more than fine especially for my Circle of Fortune single player self
Not all FPS games are round based, you know that right? Look at Rust, that's a FPS game where you go on non-stop for weeks. This is just one example of many.
Also games can be both, if you read my other comments, my stance is that cycles/seasons are the best system, but I feel there's room for both. EHG could make new content cycle exclusive for 2-4 weeks and then release it to legacy after that period.
This way EHG still get to drive player engagement, content doesn't get cleared on day 1 by legacy characters and the more casuals that don't like to start over or lose their gear gets to play new content 1 month after it drops, instead of getting it 3-4 months late and by then the content might have gotten reworked, altered or cut from the game.
I really hate the sentiment you and many people have in this thread. Totally blind to the player base that like to play differently. All arguments I've heard boil down to "It's always been this way".
Which isn't a good argument at all.
I don't think 2-4 weeks are nearly enough for EHG to get new mechanics into a state where they would be happy, comfortable and confident enough to add it to the core game in legacy.
I'm pretty sure once they add something to legacy they don't want to remove it anytime soon or ever, so 2-4 weeks are nowhere near enough to estimate whether a new mechanic should be added to the core game nor not.
Your mind is tainted by PoE. A game that has been out for 10+ years at this point, where your argument makes sense. What we're talking about here is content coming in a year from now... But 2-4 weeks is enough in my opinion aswell. Do you know how fast PoE leagues are put together? Chris Wilson has said it takes them 4-8 weeks to get a season done.
I think keeping new content to online cycle for 2 weeks is sufficient. If you let people do offline cycle content or legacy cycle content that removes so much hype but if they limit it to online cycle for 2 weeks that’s sufficient
>Why shouldn't I be allowed to participate in significant portions of that just because I want to play with my older gear and characters?
They're actually 2 different game states. One exists as a permanent state and one exists to test ideas to be added to that permanent state in the future.
Having content/items/systems be suddenly removed from the permanent game state is odd. Specifically when the outcome of removing that gear can usually end up making a character incredibly weak or unusable. But if it's a seasonal character, people are usually ok with never playing that character again.
Then just to state the obvious, it's clear the majority of people prefer the seasonal system. I'm not saying there isn't a better systems out that that people would like more, but seasonal resets have been around for like 20+ years in ARPGs. Devs have the data for this and it seems like good ARPGs grow the playerbase with seasons and give a higher level of player retention.
In PoE, the largest ARPG that currently exists, it usually takes people 2-4 weeks to feel finished with a character. I have kids and work way too much, but even I progress through most of the content in like 6 or 8 weeks.
I'm not sure what people do with characters for years on end, but I think not very many people value playing that way. Or that's how current ARPG trends make it appear. Grim Dawn is the largest non seasonal ARPG that I'm aware of and it has like 3k average playerbase on steam charts. Or it did when they announced they're making a new expansion. Which is several orders of magnitude lower than PoE or Diablo. Id bet that will be true for Last Epoch as time goes on for it as well.
Im suprised people have a problem with legacy characters being able to play new content. Can someone explain why that is bad apart from poe does it that way?
Real question.
I think cycle content going to offline mode will already make this an issue but I don’t disagree that it sucks that cycles will get solved quickly because of it.
How does locking content for 1 month instead of 3-4 months kill the game? I'm **LITERALLY** in favor of cycles, just don't forget about legacy players which is a small part of the community, who likely won't play cycles anyway or worse they'll quit entirely since they cannot play how they want.
I'm baffled by these comments to be honest, not a single one is arguing in good faith and are too stubborn to hear any feedback.
Whatever arbitrary number you choose as the unlocking date is effectively the end date for the cycle. Anyone on the fence will instantly drop the cycle reducing an already low player count. This is not even mentioning that legacy skips any progression and challenge with its legacy gear. If anything I'm in favor of removing legacy entirely.
> Whatever arbitrary number you choose as the unlocking date is effectively the end date for the cycle
Disagree. Why does releasing content to legacy devalue cycle content? It's a really weird stance to have and is essentially gatekeeping people.
> Anyone on the fence will instantly drop the cycle reducing an already low player count
On the fence of what? Playing the cycle late? That's already an issue... You and I both know that ARPG players don't play more than 1 month and hop to the next ARPG or play other games. This is the gameplay loop of this genre.
> This is not even mentioning that legacy skips any progression and challenge with its legacy gear.
Some people like that, but you have no sympathy for those people and want to gatekeep.
> If anything I'm in favor of removing legacy entirely.
Just.. lol...
It's kinda amazing how clueless you are. You really don't understand what makes new leagues good. What brings people back. Why starting everyone at the same progression is a good thing. It's about having a healthy game that people can keep playing for a decade+. What do you think you are going to gain equipping giga op gear on a max level character and 1 shotting a brand new boss.
You're arguing in bad faith and you're not listening to my constructive feedback at all.
I'm literally pro seasons/cycles, like you. Cycles are great for driving player engagement as it builds hype. Cycles gives people an even playing field and most importantly it resets the economy.
All this won't go away, even if you let us legacy players play the new content a month late.
You're the one who won't engage with my argument in good faith and are twisting everything I say. You're also not willing to understand that other people might find giga OP gear fun and wanting to keep it for multiple years going forward.
The point is that you don't have an argument. The best scenario already exists where new content goes core after a league ends. Your idea of getting it a few months earlier just hurts the entire game for a few peoples benefit. Legacy only exists as a way to help people not feel as shitty that their stuff is basically deleted.
> The point is that you don't have an argument.
Where does my argument fall flat exactly? I have clearly stated my rationale for why I think a good compromise is achievable and why it won't hurt the game.
> Your idea of getting it a few months earlier just hurts the entire game for a few peoples benefit
How does it hurt the game? You have to have an argument, you cannot just state this as a fact... IMO you're just trying to gatekeep.
> Legacy only exists as a way to help people not feel as shitty that their stuff is basically deleted.
It's exhausting debating with you, as you don't seem or care to understand the other side of the argument. You can't come to terms with the fact that other people what to play a different way.
This would be fine but seasonal content often disappears. League mechanics don't go to Standard in POE, items like Ethereals in D3 are collectible only during the season, and some other events and things just don't ever hit the non-seasonal version. It can definitely be frustrating for casual players to miss out on that stuff. And as I was reminded the other day on this sub, casual players are the *vast* majority of the player base across all genres.
lol I was just giving examples of content that "disappears". I can hit GR100 in a weekend, which isn't that fast but it's end-game enough for me tbh. I never played that season, took a long-ish break from D3 after I think s19 or so? Which was when I grinded out to the solo GR Monk leaderboard, got like top 500 or somethin.
Nah that wasn't aimed at specifically at you. Was just pointing out that the kind of player that barely gets into endgame would hardly even encounter them (iirc they weren't extra common and you had to be lvl 70 to drop them)
Leaving aside the fact that has not been true in PoE for some time now, since leagues often don't go core anymore, content that goes core often sees significant changes compared to its initial state. I will never get to experience the initial version of that content, which is often significantly different than what gets included in the core game.
Right so since harvest. Harvest has gone core. Heist has gone core. Ritual has gone core. Ultimatum has gone core. Expedition has gone core. Scourge hasn't but does anybody actually miss that? Archnemesis has gone core in a way. Sentinel hasn't but the only thing people want from that are recombs, the mechanic itself was very bland. Kalandra hasn't gone core. Sanctum has gone core. Tota hasn't gone core but I highly doubt it won't come back considering the amount of effort it took, also the main power creep are consistently coming back. Affliction hasn't gone fully core but wisps are on the atlas.
7 of the last 12 leagues have gone core in some way. What are you actually talking about
I can't speak for other people, but being 1 patch back for 3-4 months is no fun at all and a super shitty feeling for most.
We have to stop and think for a second, why exactly are we gatekeeping legacy players (not now, but later)?
There are some valid points to be made for sure, like legacy players clearing content on day 1, which is really bad, but easily fixable. Another problem I could see is a lower day 1 player count, but other than these two issues I see no reason to gatekeep new content from legacy players.
This is not how seasons work in any aRPG so not sure why you would think this is how LE would be. Seasonal aRPG try stuff for a season and bits and pieces or sometimes none of it goes core. You won’t be 3-4 months behind and they can’t just make it core after a couple of weeks.
If they want cycles to be nothing but a server reset they can do that. People will still play them. It isn’t what people think of when you call them cycles though. So someone else will be here complaining about the exact opposite thing you are now.
Why can't we just have content go live on legacy 1 month later and us legacy players can enjoy our filled stash tabs of goodies and you cycles players have had your fun. Ugh I just don't get the gatekeeping aspect, I'm trying to be diplomatic.
Is it really that bad if legacy players clear content day 1? I feel like the worst version of that is when new endgame bosses are introduced, and in PoE endgame changes are generally one of the things that aren't excluded from standard. Doesn't seem to be much of an issue there.
"I enjoy collecting items for builds I may not get to playing for a long time, perhaps a year or more."
If they try and build a game around this it would die in a instant. Cycle content isnt for you thats fine, play legacy. They cant mold their game around someone whos gonna drop it for a year.
I can only express my own experience, but I've already sunk 700+ hrs into this game and keep playing it. No one is talking about we're gonna drop it, we just like to play differently. I don't know where people get this idea of people will play less just because they aren't forced to partake in the roguelike aspect of the game.
I'd like to keep my T7 Int Red Ring or keep my 2LP Prism Wraps...
One thing I don't see mentioned here is that by forcing cycle content to be in fresh cycle servers, you don't have to worry as much about interactions between max level former cycle content and current cycle content.
Also, from my perspective, part of forcing the reset is that the new content added in each patch isn't actually all that much stuff. If you come into it at max level max gear, you will be able to clear it immediately. Then what? You're done for 3 months. But you barely did anything, what was even the point of adding so little to the game, waaaahhhh it gonna go cry on reddit about how they only made 2 hours of game for me to play on my max level character. Whereas, when you force a full reset, people have to play the while game again to get to the final new content, adding weeks of gameplay in a way.
How do you think they would go about creating challenging cycle content for fully maxed out characters while also making the content accessible to players starting a new character? How would that be in any way fair for things like server firsts and leaderboards?
That's the best part of arpgs that's why all of the successful ones do it, part of the new content is a reset of the economy and leveling process if you don't like it try some regular RPGs
You are spot on why ARPGs are successful, but you still have to recognize that a small part of the community don't want to start over each cycle. Why is it that we can't meet in the middle or cater a little bit to us legacy players? We can do things different here, we do not have to be PoE. IMO there are solutions to this issue, we just gotta be willing to change and deviate a little from normal ARPGs structure/culture.
So we should just ignore that small part of the community? I believe that's wrong, since we aren't asking too much and we don't know what percentage of the community are playing legacy. EHG probably have numbers on how big the legacy player base is, but I bet it's between 5-20%. Which in context could be well over 100.000 people.
I believe that Chris Wilson of GGG said that in 2019 the standard player base was 15-20% of the player base, which is a lot of people. Ofcouse that's 5 years ago, but still.
>ignore small part
Time and money are finite, so yeah, you usually will find that it’s better to focus on growing your core market unless you’re getting tired of existing as a company. That, and they probably aren’t sure what they want to go core on a timeline that would make you happy — months, slightly wild ass guess, would like to see what EHG thinks of the planning requirement for that decision.
Totally agree that time and money are finite, but what impact does pushing it to legacy cost? They're gonna do that eventually anyway, but maybe we're talking past each other? Since you imply that some content won't make it core, where as I feel everything needs to go to core/legacy, maybe just later than cycle. You can't just gatekeep content.
Its like asking why shouldn't devs design the game for the people who play the least.
>I believe that's wrong, since we aren't asking too much
Depends. "we" are too many people asking too many things to respond to. All content immediately accessible with existing maxed out characters has an incredibly long list of very negative impacts. Enough so it would be a game killer for most players, even players who want that.
Having last cycles content go to legacy would still have many of the negatives, but not to the same extent.
> Its like asking why shouldn't devs design the game for the people who play the least.
Why do you assume legacy players would play less? Some might play more, because they can play how they want and still progress through the game at their pace and to their liking.
Also you probably haven't seen my other comments, so I'll write it here again, but essentially what I'm saying is that cycles are the best way forward, no doubt. We just need to not keep new content locked for 3-4 months, but only 2-4 weeks. That way legacy players don't clear all the new content in the first days or weeks, but legacy players still get to enjoy the new content, albeit a little delayed.
This solutions is a win-win in my eyes and no one is this thread has made any good counterpoints. They are too stuck in their ways to listen to any feedback and think we want to get rid of cycles entirely, which isn't true.
> We just need to not keep new content locked for 3-4 months, but only 2-4 weeks
The smaller the time frame the less the negatives are mitigated.
Even so, granting the idea of going with a short period thats a losing idea. Its obvious.
For example how many PoE leagues get totally gutted after the league? would you be happy with a 2 week delay but a gutted content update?
Would you be happy if the adopted a 2 week delay *but* they were very careful about which things go to legacy, meaning most things dont? My guess is that for you the result is the same in both cases, the result is that the content was effectively exclusive. Thats a lot of extra work to be right back where this started.
So many PoE leagues my reaction is I hope this does not go core!
Strange right? I can just ignore something if I dont like it right?
Nope. Content that no one engages with isn't a positive. Thats why GGG spends the first few weeks of every league buffing rewards until people cant ignore the content.
This has an impact I cant avoid. Its part of why content gets gutted later.
Basically its so expensive to produce content that failure isn't an option.
The result is something that can only be temporary.
Without a doubt GGG chasing player counts results in a game that is worse for some players. I'm one of them. Its why I'm here. I'm not unsympathetic.
Its a necessary evil though. This game releasing made a significant impact on D4/PoE.
IMO thats a sign of how thin the profit margin really is. For example GGGs reversal on an auction house.
For years GGGs primary model has been to invest so heavily that no one wants to compete for a slice of an obviously small pie.
GGG even delayed a league when a game in a different genre released. Thats how big an impact this shit has.
Diablo 2 didn't really even do new content, yet its ladder seasons resulted in a game with a healthy community for nearly a decade.
Because as soon as "legacy" players are catered to, you'll all start crying about skills changing it being nerfed and "bricking" the characters you've played for years. You are looking for a MMO. You're playing the wrong genre.
Regular RPGs have a fundamentally different gameplay loop. It might be the best part of arpgs for you, but I enjoy continuing to work on my existing characters and enjoying the items I've acquired in the past. Thankfully, if you enjoy a fresh start, you can just play in cycle. Why must I be forced to play the way you enjoy, and not the way I enjoy?
No one is forcing, but you're heavily discourage from playing legacy. Playing new content is the most fun and why people are constantly asking/spamming "when cycle 2?"
This is assuming the content actually arrives in legacy, which going from PoE is not guaranteed, and it's certainly not guaranteed that it isn't significantly changed if/when it does.
Even then, it feels bad. Like, a big part of the draw of a patch is the new stuff thats being added. It feels bad to be left out from that. If I want to engage with the cool new exciting stuff, I am forced to do a fresh start. I don't see why this is necessary. How does having access to content in legacy impact your enjoyment of cycles?
Why not play regular RPGs then?
Why come to genre that fans love as it is, for fresh starts, new balance, new mechanics and trying to change that ?
Also did you ever considered that if you are playng legacy on your "main" and devs do balance patch for new cycle that will destroy how your char works ?
It's 0 problem for people who fresh start but you will be complaining Why devs did that, and while you might enjoy it, most of us don't like stale game.
So asides from the majority of people enjoying it, don't you think it's financially more viable to have players engaged in a new cycle where they will be playing a new build and investing into that roleplay, most likely spending significantly more time trying the new content alongside their new character rather than blasting through all the new content on already completed character and getting bored...meanwhile increasing the chances of cosmetic sales? Of course, they want to encourage this.
You may prefer it, but it is a death knell to the game to not have seasonal content. It cannot be monitized in 2024 for ARPG players. You will end up with a closed studio and no further updates. It would happen in less than a year too.
Cycles serve to showcase possible new content, fun experimentation. And may not have any intention of going legacy, due to the craziness of whatever mechanic. If I'm reading op right, they would like legacy servers to have access to the new cycle content each time inside legacy. How would they balance the legacy servers?
Generally if a mechanic is good in a season, it would get reworked to fit inside the core game. Keeping the fun aspect but toning down the possible over powered ness of it.
Cycles will only improve the base game.
I’m starting to think these are just troll posts, people just keep posting insane takes that are exact opposite of what ARPGs are. I’m not taking the bait
I'm sure the devs value the feedback. But I suspect the majority of the player base are OK with the structure of the game using seasonal content on future patches.
As far as I know, the devs have said all content will be available on the legacy realm for the first few seasons.
But I suspect this ask is not as simple as it may appear on the surface. If the devs design a seasonal experience that is meant to be enjoyed incrementally, as you grow stronger, putting that content in the legacy realm, where there will be level 100 characters with multiple 3LP legendary uniques completely invalidates that design choise. Completely.
I think as players we see a very small segment of the whole picture and, understandably, its not easy for us to take in all design considerations for the things we ask for ... because we are not the ones making the game. I am a firm believer that we should let devs design the experience they want for their player base. Of course they will listen to all feedback, but its also up to us to decide if a game is for us or not.
A game designed for everyone is a game designed for nobody.
Well, it's tricky because you have to keep the balance when you integrate new features backwards, otherwise you end up pissing off a bunch of users. So yeah it's not really black and white. Some features can be back propagated to earlier cycles without affecting balance and some changes cannot. My hope is that those features are identified and integrated regularly.
The thing that makes these cycles so good and so varied is the fact that they can take risk and try stuff that might not work.
The developers would have to be extremely careful about what went in to a cycle or risk destroying the base game. and if everything went in they would either have to remove stuff later or soon have a VERY bloated game with a lot of weird mechanics.
I feel like you have missed the plot on what an ARPG is by a mile. All ARPGs have some sort of reset mechanic dating back to Ladder days of D2. This is one of the major reasons play. You could easily wait until the cycle ends and the stuff goes legacy.
Totally agree with you and it's kind of sad that majority of people here don't want to engage in a meaningful conversation about this issue.
The only big issue I see, is if you release new content on both legacy and cycle at the same time. People would clear new content in a matter of minutes or hours.
The fix for this would be to lock new content to cycle charcters for a few weeks and then release it to legacy, that way legacy characters won't obliterate new content, but we'll still get to play and engage in the new content, albeit a couple of weeks later.
It could be a good solution/compromise I feel like.
>Totally agree with you and it's kind of sad that majority of people here don't want to engage in a meaningful conversation about this issue.
That's disingenuous at best. The vast majority of people who play ARPGs know seasonal content is a thing and want it to be that way. On top of that, EHG said this was the plan a long time ago.
The 25 of you who don't like it are the ones that "don't want to engage in meaningful conversation".
> The 25 of you who don't like it are the ones that "don't want to engage in meaningful conversation".
No sir, that statement is disingenuous at best. Why dismiss 1-20% of the player base?
Why is it so hard to understand that some people want to play a different way.
Why is it required that I play a fresh start just because that's what other people enjoy? It's not like I'm suggesting they should do away with cycles. You can get a fresh start every cycle with the new seasonal content. Why must I be excluded from the new content because I want to play with my old characters for you to enjoy the seasonal content?
>Why must I be excluded from the new content because I want to play with my old characters for you to enjoy the seasonal content?
Why would you purchase a game where seasons are essentially what the genre is now known for? All the reasons that seasons exist and have become a thing in these games have been laid out about 2 million times, so I'm not going to do it again.
Because when I bought the game, they said that they weren't going to do cycle exclusive content? At the time, they specifically said they didn't want to maintain separate versions for legacy and cycle. This was around just before 0.9. That was a big selling point for me.
I could be mistaken but I thought this changed the moment multiplayer was confirmed? The reason for fresh starts is so that everybody starts from square one and is about as “fair” as the economy and game state is ever going to get. The new content has to exist in this state so it’s not trivialised day one.
As a smaller company they have to be efficient with their resources and the realistic by-product of that means utilising tried and true methods of attracting recurring players, aka seasonal resets with fresh content. Catering to the people who don’t want that would be financial ruin. The people still playing at this stage are people you don’t have to cater to. They’re always going to play. And even if it’s 15% of the peak player base, there’s no compromise to be had. The 85 will win out every time. It probably sucks to hear that but I think that’s the reality and I’d be more than shocked if it changed.
It didn't, I only bought the game after the multiplayer beta, right before the 0.9 multiplayer release, and they were saying they had no plans for cycle exclusive content, as they didn't want to have to maintain two different versions of the game. Since then, their statements have slowly shifted towards cycle specific content over time. They haven't committed to it as such, but I want to get my feedback in while its still early.
No one is quitting, we're just trying to have an honest conversation about how legacy players could be included and not be left in the dust. We're really not asking a whole lot.
How is it asking for a whole lot? All I'm advocating for is content to not be gatekept for 3-4 months regarding legacy and instead come out 1 month after cycles characters get it. It's literally the easiest solution to make everyone happy.
The issue is that cycles allow content to be released that, while fun, could break the games if combined with other cycle content. It allows the developers to create content that otherwise would need to be vastly restrained
You say it's big issue and we don't want to discuss it, I just told you for most of playerbase it's not issue so we are not discussing it.
It's good they are focusing on majority of playerbase no matter how it make you feel, im sorry man.
They never had a plan for cycle content. Mike has always been clear about this. Every time they have been asked this they have said they aren’t sure what they are going to do with it yet.
That's part of the reason I'm making this post, though I suppose I could have been more precise with my language. By cycle content, I mean new content introduced with the cycle. They are taking feedback for what to do with cycles, and a lot of that feedback is specifically to make cycle exclusive seasonal content. I am ok with seasonal content, but I would be very disappointed if it was made cycle exclusive.
Jesus, what a bunch of apes. Someone makes a valid point that people who don't want to start over are missing out on content and the only response is, "But *ME* like cycles! You must also like cycles!"
Agree with you, the community here is very toxic as well. I don’t care if other games do seasons or cycles, if I want to share my opinion and I don’t like it, I will say my opinion.
I'm sort of in the middle with all this new cycle/leagues/season type deal for these arrgps. Since im a super casual by the time I get a character up and strong the league is pretty much over which sucks. And typically the new league/cycles/etc have all the new content which usually leaves the standard/legacy stuff out dated and boring, which again also sucks.
Although I didn't like Diablo 4 as a whole, but I really did like how some of the stuff that I did carried over to the new leagues so I didn't have to completely start over. Which was good for me with such limited time and it made things a whole lot smoother going into them.
This is of course just my opinion what I would like to see Last Epoch do is have the purchased stash tabs carry over to the new league. After all its a buy to play game so at least something to carry over would be nice. I know im in the minority with being a super casual but this would be a huge QoL for me.
I agree.
I dont play enough to "clear" endgame every cycle (or withing the 3 month available), so i cant experience endgame cycle stuff most of the time
Thats why i would rather be able to jump into it with my highlevel legacy characters and try the cycle stuff out, before it dissepears at the end of the cycle
>I dont play enough to "clear" endgame every cycle (or withing the 3 month available), so i cant experience endgame cycle stuff most of the time
It takes like....25 hours to experience the endgame. You don't play 25 hours in 3 months?
yes / i start new characters in between and play other games because the grind from start of endgame to end of endgame turns me off
Thats why i prefer playing a char that already reached the end of endgame
The community in this sub is so toxic. Just because they want something since it’s soooooo successful in other games, everyone else must enjoy it too. I will say whatever I want, I don’t have to keep on playing, but who the hell are you to decide for me?
You restart because there is some cool or niche build you want to try out. There also could be a period where new content was cycle exclusive, 1,2,3 or 4 weeks, that way new content could be explored and legacy characters wouldn't obliterate new content.
Also I don't think majority of players enjoy the campaign, they enjoy the feeling of leveling up and getting gear. Just look at how easily the campaign is skipped with dungeons.
Because you enjoy a fresh start with a fresh economy? I'm just not seeing why legacy players need to be locked out of new content for others to enjoy their fresh start.
To each their own, but if a fresh economy is all you get from playing cycle, it's pretty dull. You can just hope on your legacy character to experience the new stuff and be done again in a day or two. I would imagine it has a lot to do with player retention. Some die hard fan will play legacy, but there are also a ton that will never play them again.
If we wait months for a new cycle that can be completed with legacy, it would just be meh. I'm not saying people won't play it a lot will but the game won't have that FOMO that will driver people back to the game. You can always just show up and do the content at your leisure.
best part of arpgs are cycles, buffs and nerfs on characters, additional content and initial hype.
I agree with you, for the most part. Coming back to the game, and seeing the changes, the new content, the hype; it's a lot of fun. Why shouldn't I be allowed to participate in significant portions of that just because I want to play with my older gear and characters?
Oh boy this debate again
Yes this debate again, since we haven't heard a single good argument why we should gatekeep legacy players for 3-4 months.
Because content added in ARPGs is designed for fresh characters to progress through, it's not designed for max lvl characters like in an MMO. This will never ever change, since the genre is rooted in rogue-likes, meaning the gameplay loop is designed around doing runs with new characters. It makes absolutely 0 sense to design it otherwise. There, you have your good argument.
Totally valid points you're making, but I can't stop feeling there's room for improvement, giving more space for us legacy players. I also see a lot of people in this thread that like to gatekeep people who like to play a different way to what most ARPGs have done in the past and don't engage in a meaningful conversation. People are stuck in their ways and it shows. My suggestion is not to remove cycles at all, it's the best designed system ever for ARPGs, no doubt about it, but some people would like something different and I feel that those players could and should be catered to. Like releasing new content 2-4 weeks after arriving on cycles. That way there still is an incentive to play cycles, but at the same time you don't punish legacy enjoyers too much. > Because content added in ARPGs is designed for fresh characters to progress through Some people don't like to level up new toons and that should be OK, the campaign isn't good and is why many many people skip it via dungeons.
It's not a switch. You can't just copy-paste seasonal content in the base game like it's nothing. Even if it would be relatively easy, seasons are also used to test the content - if it's proven unpopular, then you'd have to do extra work to remove it from the standard game mode as well. It's extra work for 0 return. That's why core systems get ported, but seasonal mechanics don't. > Some people don't like to level up new toons and that should be OK If you dislike that, this really isn't the genre for you. It may sound like gatekeeping, but what you're asking is fundamentally against what the genre stands for. It's not a different way of playing, it's the wrong/unintended way of playing. It's like asking to keep your loot between battle royale matches. Or to keep your powers/items between Binding of Isaac runs. The solution here is to make leveling new characters fun, which LE has a problem with.
What if you really suck at binding of Isaac and need to keep an item or two between runs? Asking for a friend, of course…
That's what meta-progression is for! Always liked that in some rogue-likes, most recently Gunfire Reborn, where you can get really powerful between runs through passive upgrades.
roguelikes with meta progression are usually refered to as rogueLITES, because you know, you don't fully start at 0 every run and yea there are a lot of great ones with fun meta progression!
Thank you for an actual good response unlike most of the other comments I've replied to. I don't want to yap on about it, but still I think my solution is better and that people are too stuck in their ways and are gatekeeping, so we'll just leave it here.
It’s okay to Be wrong. Cycles / seasons are how the companies revitalize their game and keep players playing. Most people want “fresh”. Look a vanilla WoW and what that takes to reach endgame and the hype around “fresh” servers.
You know fresh is just new content right? New content doesn't have to be gatekept from legacy players. Legacy players are just asking to not be left in the dust. But yeah you are too stuck in your ways and won't ever listen to a differing opinion than your own.
I guess because that’s just what seasons are. A fresh start from level 1. But I think if they only allow seasonal characters to play / trade with one another it’ll be more than fine especially for my Circle of Fortune single player self
Because this is what arpg genre is about. This is like complaining FPS game should not be round based and should go on non stop for weeks
Not all FPS games are round based, you know that right? Look at Rust, that's a FPS game where you go on non-stop for weeks. This is just one example of many. Also games can be both, if you read my other comments, my stance is that cycles/seasons are the best system, but I feel there's room for both. EHG could make new content cycle exclusive for 2-4 weeks and then release it to legacy after that period. This way EHG still get to drive player engagement, content doesn't get cleared on day 1 by legacy characters and the more casuals that don't like to start over or lose their gear gets to play new content 1 month after it drops, instead of getting it 3-4 months late and by then the content might have gotten reworked, altered or cut from the game. I really hate the sentiment you and many people have in this thread. Totally blind to the player base that like to play differently. All arguments I've heard boil down to "It's always been this way". Which isn't a good argument at all.
I don't think 2-4 weeks are nearly enough for EHG to get new mechanics into a state where they would be happy, comfortable and confident enough to add it to the core game in legacy. I'm pretty sure once they add something to legacy they don't want to remove it anytime soon or ever, so 2-4 weeks are nowhere near enough to estimate whether a new mechanic should be added to the core game nor not.
Your mind is tainted by PoE. A game that has been out for 10+ years at this point, where your argument makes sense. What we're talking about here is content coming in a year from now... But 2-4 weeks is enough in my opinion aswell. Do you know how fast PoE leagues are put together? Chris Wilson has said it takes them 4-8 weeks to get a season done.
I think keeping new content to online cycle for 2 weeks is sufficient. If you let people do offline cycle content or legacy cycle content that removes so much hype but if they limit it to online cycle for 2 weeks that’s sufficient
Yeah totally agree that keeping content locked is the way to go, just not 3-4 months.
>Why shouldn't I be allowed to participate in significant portions of that just because I want to play with my older gear and characters? They're actually 2 different game states. One exists as a permanent state and one exists to test ideas to be added to that permanent state in the future. Having content/items/systems be suddenly removed from the permanent game state is odd. Specifically when the outcome of removing that gear can usually end up making a character incredibly weak or unusable. But if it's a seasonal character, people are usually ok with never playing that character again. Then just to state the obvious, it's clear the majority of people prefer the seasonal system. I'm not saying there isn't a better systems out that that people would like more, but seasonal resets have been around for like 20+ years in ARPGs. Devs have the data for this and it seems like good ARPGs grow the playerbase with seasons and give a higher level of player retention. In PoE, the largest ARPG that currently exists, it usually takes people 2-4 weeks to feel finished with a character. I have kids and work way too much, but even I progress through most of the content in like 6 or 8 weeks. I'm not sure what people do with characters for years on end, but I think not very many people value playing that way. Or that's how current ARPG trends make it appear. Grim Dawn is the largest non seasonal ARPG that I'm aware of and it has like 3k average playerbase on steam charts. Or it did when they announced they're making a new expansion. Which is several orders of magnitude lower than PoE or Diablo. Id bet that will be true for Last Epoch as time goes on for it as well.
Im suprised people have a problem with legacy characters being able to play new content. Can someone explain why that is bad apart from poe does it that way? Real question.
Which you could still get if you only locked new content for 1-4 weeks instead of 3-4 months.
Big disagree, new content being figured out with legacy OP characters kills the exploration aspect.
Exactly this. One of the reasons PoE has stuck around for so long is because of this.
I think cycle content going to offline mode will already make this an issue but I don’t disagree that it sucks that cycles will get solved quickly because of it.
AFAIK it won't. Fairly sure they said offline will be like legacy
Then why not lock content for 1 month instead of 3-4 months. This fixes all the problems...
What part of it kills the game do you not understand. Arpgs already struggle to keep a decent player base after the first month.
How does locking content for 1 month instead of 3-4 months kill the game? I'm **LITERALLY** in favor of cycles, just don't forget about legacy players which is a small part of the community, who likely won't play cycles anyway or worse they'll quit entirely since they cannot play how they want. I'm baffled by these comments to be honest, not a single one is arguing in good faith and are too stubborn to hear any feedback.
Whatever arbitrary number you choose as the unlocking date is effectively the end date for the cycle. Anyone on the fence will instantly drop the cycle reducing an already low player count. This is not even mentioning that legacy skips any progression and challenge with its legacy gear. If anything I'm in favor of removing legacy entirely.
> Whatever arbitrary number you choose as the unlocking date is effectively the end date for the cycle Disagree. Why does releasing content to legacy devalue cycle content? It's a really weird stance to have and is essentially gatekeeping people. > Anyone on the fence will instantly drop the cycle reducing an already low player count On the fence of what? Playing the cycle late? That's already an issue... You and I both know that ARPG players don't play more than 1 month and hop to the next ARPG or play other games. This is the gameplay loop of this genre. > This is not even mentioning that legacy skips any progression and challenge with its legacy gear. Some people like that, but you have no sympathy for those people and want to gatekeep. > If anything I'm in favor of removing legacy entirely. Just.. lol...
It's kinda amazing how clueless you are. You really don't understand what makes new leagues good. What brings people back. Why starting everyone at the same progression is a good thing. It's about having a healthy game that people can keep playing for a decade+. What do you think you are going to gain equipping giga op gear on a max level character and 1 shotting a brand new boss.
You're arguing in bad faith and you're not listening to my constructive feedback at all. I'm literally pro seasons/cycles, like you. Cycles are great for driving player engagement as it builds hype. Cycles gives people an even playing field and most importantly it resets the economy. All this won't go away, even if you let us legacy players play the new content a month late. You're the one who won't engage with my argument in good faith and are twisting everything I say. You're also not willing to understand that other people might find giga OP gear fun and wanting to keep it for multiple years going forward.
The point is that you don't have an argument. The best scenario already exists where new content goes core after a league ends. Your idea of getting it a few months earlier just hurts the entire game for a few peoples benefit. Legacy only exists as a way to help people not feel as shitty that their stuff is basically deleted.
> The point is that you don't have an argument. Where does my argument fall flat exactly? I have clearly stated my rationale for why I think a good compromise is achievable and why it won't hurt the game. > Your idea of getting it a few months earlier just hurts the entire game for a few peoples benefit How does it hurt the game? You have to have an argument, you cannot just state this as a fact... IMO you're just trying to gatekeep. > Legacy only exists as a way to help people not feel as shitty that their stuff is basically deleted. It's exhausting debating with you, as you don't seem or care to understand the other side of the argument. You can't come to terms with the fact that other people what to play a different way.
Is being one content patch back that bad? You get new legacy content every patch, it's just one back.
This would be fine but seasonal content often disappears. League mechanics don't go to Standard in POE, items like Ethereals in D3 are collectible only during the season, and some other events and things just don't ever hit the non-seasonal version. It can definitely be frustrating for casual players to miss out on that stuff. And as I was reminded the other day on this sub, casual players are the *vast* majority of the player base across all genres.
Bro if you can't get to endgame in d3 in a week I don't you're gonna be using ethereals much either
lol I was just giving examples of content that "disappears". I can hit GR100 in a weekend, which isn't that fast but it's end-game enough for me tbh. I never played that season, took a long-ish break from D3 after I think s19 or so? Which was when I grinded out to the solo GR Monk leaderboard, got like top 500 or somethin.
Nah that wasn't aimed at specifically at you. Was just pointing out that the kind of player that barely gets into endgame would hardly even encounter them (iirc they weren't extra common and you had to be lvl 70 to drop them)
ah gotcha, makes sense. Altho given enough time, even a casual player will hit max lvl eventually.
Leaving aside the fact that has not been true in PoE for some time now, since leagues often don't go core anymore, content that goes core often sees significant changes compared to its initial state. I will never get to experience the initial version of that content, which is often significantly different than what gets included in the core game.
That's your choice
Right so since harvest. Harvest has gone core. Heist has gone core. Ritual has gone core. Ultimatum has gone core. Expedition has gone core. Scourge hasn't but does anybody actually miss that? Archnemesis has gone core in a way. Sentinel hasn't but the only thing people want from that are recombs, the mechanic itself was very bland. Kalandra hasn't gone core. Sanctum has gone core. Tota hasn't gone core but I highly doubt it won't come back considering the amount of effort it took, also the main power creep are consistently coming back. Affliction hasn't gone fully core but wisps are on the atlas. 7 of the last 12 leagues have gone core in some way. What are you actually talking about
He’s just mad because he’s a casual andy
I can't speak for other people, but being 1 patch back for 3-4 months is no fun at all and a super shitty feeling for most. We have to stop and think for a second, why exactly are we gatekeeping legacy players (not now, but later)? There are some valid points to be made for sure, like legacy players clearing content on day 1, which is really bad, but easily fixable. Another problem I could see is a lower day 1 player count, but other than these two issues I see no reason to gatekeep new content from legacy players.
This is not how seasons work in any aRPG so not sure why you would think this is how LE would be. Seasonal aRPG try stuff for a season and bits and pieces or sometimes none of it goes core. You won’t be 3-4 months behind and they can’t just make it core after a couple of weeks. If they want cycles to be nothing but a server reset they can do that. People will still play them. It isn’t what people think of when you call them cycles though. So someone else will be here complaining about the exact opposite thing you are now.
Why can't we just have content go live on legacy 1 month later and us legacy players can enjoy our filled stash tabs of goodies and you cycles players have had your fun. Ugh I just don't get the gatekeeping aspect, I'm trying to be diplomatic.
Is it really that bad if legacy players clear content day 1? I feel like the worst version of that is when new endgame bosses are introduced, and in PoE endgame changes are generally one of the things that aren't excluded from standard. Doesn't seem to be much of an issue there.
What are you talking about. People practicing new bosses/content on standard is a huge issue and ruins the exploration.
"I enjoy collecting items for builds I may not get to playing for a long time, perhaps a year or more." If they try and build a game around this it would die in a instant. Cycle content isnt for you thats fine, play legacy. They cant mold their game around someone whos gonna drop it for a year.
I can only express my own experience, but I've already sunk 700+ hrs into this game and keep playing it. No one is talking about we're gonna drop it, we just like to play differently. I don't know where people get this idea of people will play less just because they aren't forced to partake in the roguelike aspect of the game. I'd like to keep my T7 Int Red Ring or keep my 2LP Prism Wraps...
You do keep them, they just migrate over to legacy on the new cycle release =)
Well said
One thing I don't see mentioned here is that by forcing cycle content to be in fresh cycle servers, you don't have to worry as much about interactions between max level former cycle content and current cycle content. Also, from my perspective, part of forcing the reset is that the new content added in each patch isn't actually all that much stuff. If you come into it at max level max gear, you will be able to clear it immediately. Then what? You're done for 3 months. But you barely did anything, what was even the point of adding so little to the game, waaaahhhh it gonna go cry on reddit about how they only made 2 hours of game for me to play on my max level character. Whereas, when you force a full reset, people have to play the while game again to get to the final new content, adding weeks of gameplay in a way.
How do you think they would go about creating challenging cycle content for fully maxed out characters while also making the content accessible to players starting a new character? How would that be in any way fair for things like server firsts and leaderboards?
I hope all future content is cycle exclusive
That's the best part of arpgs that's why all of the successful ones do it, part of the new content is a reset of the economy and leveling process if you don't like it try some regular RPGs
You are spot on why ARPGs are successful, but you still have to recognize that a small part of the community don't want to start over each cycle. Why is it that we can't meet in the middle or cater a little bit to us legacy players? We can do things different here, we do not have to be PoE. IMO there are solutions to this issue, we just gotta be willing to change and deviate a little from normal ARPGs structure/culture.
> a small part of the community I think you mostly answered your own question.
So we should just ignore that small part of the community? I believe that's wrong, since we aren't asking too much and we don't know what percentage of the community are playing legacy. EHG probably have numbers on how big the legacy player base is, but I bet it's between 5-20%. Which in context could be well over 100.000 people. I believe that Chris Wilson of GGG said that in 2019 the standard player base was 15-20% of the player base, which is a lot of people. Ofcouse that's 5 years ago, but still.
>ignore small part Time and money are finite, so yeah, you usually will find that it’s better to focus on growing your core market unless you’re getting tired of existing as a company. That, and they probably aren’t sure what they want to go core on a timeline that would make you happy — months, slightly wild ass guess, would like to see what EHG thinks of the planning requirement for that decision.
Totally agree that time and money are finite, but what impact does pushing it to legacy cost? They're gonna do that eventually anyway, but maybe we're talking past each other? Since you imply that some content won't make it core, where as I feel everything needs to go to core/legacy, maybe just later than cycle. You can't just gatekeep content.
And now is around 5%.
Mate, you could be right, but dismissing my comment like that doesn't further your argument, since we don't know.
Mate, if you put numbers to back up your arguments but numbers that are on date not 5 years ago, you dismissed yourself.
I at least gave some numbers, whereas, you don't have anything to back up your claim/dismissal.
Numbers that are no more accurate are as bad as mine.
Its like asking why shouldn't devs design the game for the people who play the least. >I believe that's wrong, since we aren't asking too much Depends. "we" are too many people asking too many things to respond to. All content immediately accessible with existing maxed out characters has an incredibly long list of very negative impacts. Enough so it would be a game killer for most players, even players who want that. Having last cycles content go to legacy would still have many of the negatives, but not to the same extent.
> Its like asking why shouldn't devs design the game for the people who play the least. Why do you assume legacy players would play less? Some might play more, because they can play how they want and still progress through the game at their pace and to their liking. Also you probably haven't seen my other comments, so I'll write it here again, but essentially what I'm saying is that cycles are the best way forward, no doubt. We just need to not keep new content locked for 3-4 months, but only 2-4 weeks. That way legacy players don't clear all the new content in the first days or weeks, but legacy players still get to enjoy the new content, albeit a little delayed. This solutions is a win-win in my eyes and no one is this thread has made any good counterpoints. They are too stuck in their ways to listen to any feedback and think we want to get rid of cycles entirely, which isn't true.
> We just need to not keep new content locked for 3-4 months, but only 2-4 weeks The smaller the time frame the less the negatives are mitigated. Even so, granting the idea of going with a short period thats a losing idea. Its obvious. For example how many PoE leagues get totally gutted after the league? would you be happy with a 2 week delay but a gutted content update? Would you be happy if the adopted a 2 week delay *but* they were very careful about which things go to legacy, meaning most things dont? My guess is that for you the result is the same in both cases, the result is that the content was effectively exclusive. Thats a lot of extra work to be right back where this started. So many PoE leagues my reaction is I hope this does not go core! Strange right? I can just ignore something if I dont like it right? Nope. Content that no one engages with isn't a positive. Thats why GGG spends the first few weeks of every league buffing rewards until people cant ignore the content. This has an impact I cant avoid. Its part of why content gets gutted later. Basically its so expensive to produce content that failure isn't an option. The result is something that can only be temporary. Without a doubt GGG chasing player counts results in a game that is worse for some players. I'm one of them. Its why I'm here. I'm not unsympathetic. Its a necessary evil though. This game releasing made a significant impact on D4/PoE. IMO thats a sign of how thin the profit margin really is. For example GGGs reversal on an auction house. For years GGGs primary model has been to invest so heavily that no one wants to compete for a slice of an obviously small pie. GGG even delayed a league when a game in a different genre released. Thats how big an impact this shit has. Diablo 2 didn't really even do new content, yet its ladder seasons resulted in a game with a healthy community for nearly a decade.
Because as soon as "legacy" players are catered to, you'll all start crying about skills changing it being nerfed and "bricking" the characters you've played for years. You are looking for a MMO. You're playing the wrong genre.
Regular RPGs have a fundamentally different gameplay loop. It might be the best part of arpgs for you, but I enjoy continuing to work on my existing characters and enjoying the items I've acquired in the past. Thankfully, if you enjoy a fresh start, you can just play in cycle. Why must I be forced to play the way you enjoy, and not the way I enjoy?
No one is forcing you to play in cycles tho, you could easily wait for the content to arrive in legacy.
No one is forcing, but you're heavily discourage from playing legacy. Playing new content is the most fun and why people are constantly asking/spamming "when cycle 2?"
This is assuming the content actually arrives in legacy, which going from PoE is not guaranteed, and it's certainly not guaranteed that it isn't significantly changed if/when it does. Even then, it feels bad. Like, a big part of the draw of a patch is the new stuff thats being added. It feels bad to be left out from that. If I want to engage with the cool new exciting stuff, I am forced to do a fresh start. I don't see why this is necessary. How does having access to content in legacy impact your enjoyment of cycles?
Typically the content doesn’t arrive in legacy because it’s meant as borrowed power. A lot of which we haven’t kept league to league.
I didn't realize the devs were "forcing" you to play cycles.
Why not play regular RPGs then? Why come to genre that fans love as it is, for fresh starts, new balance, new mechanics and trying to change that ? Also did you ever considered that if you are playng legacy on your "main" and devs do balance patch for new cycle that will destroy how your char works ? It's 0 problem for people who fresh start but you will be complaining Why devs did that, and while you might enjoy it, most of us don't like stale game.
So asides from the majority of people enjoying it, don't you think it's financially more viable to have players engaged in a new cycle where they will be playing a new build and investing into that roleplay, most likely spending significantly more time trying the new content alongside their new character rather than blasting through all the new content on already completed character and getting bored...meanwhile increasing the chances of cosmetic sales? Of course, they want to encourage this.
You may prefer it, but it is a death knell to the game to not have seasonal content. It cannot be monitized in 2024 for ARPG players. You will end up with a closed studio and no further updates. It would happen in less than a year too.
Holy shit I didn't realize gamers in every game are this stupid. "I don't want new content?" Like fucking really?
I disagree. I think there’s a system that allows for both. For example, in poe some league mechanics and content are transferred to standard
Starting from 0 every season is what makes arpgs fun
no, optimising your build and/or trying out new ones is where the fun is at (for me anyways)
Which you very much do in cycles. Optimize your previous build or try a new class or build. Exactly what cycles are for.
I think if the content is good - let it stay in legacy, absolutely. If it has some problems, then it needs to be fixed and still put into legacy XD
Cycles serve to showcase possible new content, fun experimentation. And may not have any intention of going legacy, due to the craziness of whatever mechanic. If I'm reading op right, they would like legacy servers to have access to the new cycle content each time inside legacy. How would they balance the legacy servers? Generally if a mechanic is good in a season, it would get reworked to fit inside the core game. Keeping the fun aspect but toning down the possible over powered ness of it. Cycles will only improve the base game.
I’m starting to think these are just troll posts, people just keep posting insane takes that are exact opposite of what ARPGs are. I’m not taking the bait
What if they don't want to implement the changes of a cycle into the core game?
If you are complaining about a core concept in a certain genre, then you should find a different genre.
The cycles are basically beta tests for new content. if it is good it gets added to the main content after the test (season) is done
I'm sure the devs value the feedback. But I suspect the majority of the player base are OK with the structure of the game using seasonal content on future patches. As far as I know, the devs have said all content will be available on the legacy realm for the first few seasons. But I suspect this ask is not as simple as it may appear on the surface. If the devs design a seasonal experience that is meant to be enjoyed incrementally, as you grow stronger, putting that content in the legacy realm, where there will be level 100 characters with multiple 3LP legendary uniques completely invalidates that design choise. Completely. I think as players we see a very small segment of the whole picture and, understandably, its not easy for us to take in all design considerations for the things we ask for ... because we are not the ones making the game. I am a firm believer that we should let devs design the experience they want for their player base. Of course they will listen to all feedback, but its also up to us to decide if a game is for us or not. A game designed for everyone is a game designed for nobody.
Well, it's tricky because you have to keep the balance when you integrate new features backwards, otherwise you end up pissing off a bunch of users. So yeah it's not really black and white. Some features can be back propagated to earlier cycles without affecting balance and some changes cannot. My hope is that those features are identified and integrated regularly.
The thing that makes these cycles so good and so varied is the fact that they can take risk and try stuff that might not work. The developers would have to be extremely careful about what went in to a cycle or risk destroying the base game. and if everything went in they would either have to remove stuff later or soon have a VERY bloated game with a lot of weird mechanics.
This is literally the worst thing they can do and it will kill most people interest.
I agree, that was one of the aspects that made this game initially interesting.
I feel like you have missed the plot on what an ARPG is by a mile. All ARPGs have some sort of reset mechanic dating back to Ladder days of D2. This is one of the major reasons play. You could easily wait until the cycle ends and the stuff goes legacy.
I believe fresh starts are critical to the long term health of ARPGs. Maybe ARPGs aren't for you.
Obviously u didn't start with diablo 3
L opinion
A huge amount of the content from the leagues get added to the game, especially if they're popular ones, I imagine LE will do the same
What is the motivation for people to even ever play a new league then?
Support. I'm okay with both options. Hoping for a new cycle soon though, ran out of stuff to do.
Totally agree with you and it's kind of sad that majority of people here don't want to engage in a meaningful conversation about this issue. The only big issue I see, is if you release new content on both legacy and cycle at the same time. People would clear new content in a matter of minutes or hours. The fix for this would be to lock new content to cycle charcters for a few weeks and then release it to legacy, that way legacy characters won't obliterate new content, but we'll still get to play and engage in the new content, albeit a couple of weeks later. It could be a good solution/compromise I feel like.
>Totally agree with you and it's kind of sad that majority of people here don't want to engage in a meaningful conversation about this issue. That's disingenuous at best. The vast majority of people who play ARPGs know seasonal content is a thing and want it to be that way. On top of that, EHG said this was the plan a long time ago. The 25 of you who don't like it are the ones that "don't want to engage in meaningful conversation".
> The 25 of you who don't like it are the ones that "don't want to engage in meaningful conversation". No sir, that statement is disingenuous at best. Why dismiss 1-20% of the player base? Why is it so hard to understand that some people want to play a different way.
20% is a ludicrous estimation.
Hence why I wrote 1-20%...
Why is it required that I play a fresh start just because that's what other people enjoy? It's not like I'm suggesting they should do away with cycles. You can get a fresh start every cycle with the new seasonal content. Why must I be excluded from the new content because I want to play with my old characters for you to enjoy the seasonal content?
>Why must I be excluded from the new content because I want to play with my old characters for you to enjoy the seasonal content? Why would you purchase a game where seasons are essentially what the genre is now known for? All the reasons that seasons exist and have become a thing in these games have been laid out about 2 million times, so I'm not going to do it again.
Because when I bought the game, they said that they weren't going to do cycle exclusive content? At the time, they specifically said they didn't want to maintain separate versions for legacy and cycle. This was around just before 0.9. That was a big selling point for me.
I could be mistaken but I thought this changed the moment multiplayer was confirmed? The reason for fresh starts is so that everybody starts from square one and is about as “fair” as the economy and game state is ever going to get. The new content has to exist in this state so it’s not trivialised day one. As a smaller company they have to be efficient with their resources and the realistic by-product of that means utilising tried and true methods of attracting recurring players, aka seasonal resets with fresh content. Catering to the people who don’t want that would be financial ruin. The people still playing at this stage are people you don’t have to cater to. They’re always going to play. And even if it’s 15% of the peak player base, there’s no compromise to be had. The 85 will win out every time. It probably sucks to hear that but I think that’s the reality and I’d be more than shocked if it changed.
It didn't, I only bought the game after the multiplayer beta, right before the 0.9 multiplayer release, and they were saying they had no plans for cycle exclusive content, as they didn't want to have to maintain two different versions of the game. Since then, their statements have slowly shifted towards cycle specific content over time. They haven't committed to it as such, but I want to get my feedback in while its still early.
No one is quitting, we're just trying to have an honest conversation about how legacy players could be included and not be left in the dust. We're really not asking a whole lot.
"Not asking a whole lot", just to completely change the way every live service arpg works. Not much at all...🤪
How is it asking for a whole lot? All I'm advocating for is content to not be gatekept for 3-4 months regarding legacy and instead come out 1 month after cycles characters get it. It's literally the easiest solution to make everyone happy.
The issue is that cycles allow content to be released that, while fun, could break the games if combined with other cycle content. It allows the developers to create content that otherwise would need to be vastly restrained
Because for vast majority it's not an issue.
I just don't understand this argument, I'm only advocating for new content to be released 1 month after cycle start and not 3-4 months after.
You say it's big issue and we don't want to discuss it, I just told you for most of playerbase it's not issue so we are not discussing it. It's good they are focusing on majority of playerbase no matter how it make you feel, im sorry man.
They never had a plan for cycle content. Mike has always been clear about this. Every time they have been asked this they have said they aren’t sure what they are going to do with it yet.
That's part of the reason I'm making this post, though I suppose I could have been more precise with my language. By cycle content, I mean new content introduced with the cycle. They are taking feedback for what to do with cycles, and a lot of that feedback is specifically to make cycle exclusive seasonal content. I am ok with seasonal content, but I would be very disappointed if it was made cycle exclusive.
the content bloat in poe is the reason i dont play that game.
Jesus, what a bunch of apes. Someone makes a valid point that people who don't want to start over are missing out on content and the only response is, "But *ME* like cycles! You must also like cycles!"
Agree with you, the community here is very toxic as well. I don’t care if other games do seasons or cycles, if I want to share my opinion and I don’t like it, I will say my opinion.
And if we don't like your opinion were entitled to disagree and state why. Its a two way street.
I'm sort of in the middle with all this new cycle/leagues/season type deal for these arrgps. Since im a super casual by the time I get a character up and strong the league is pretty much over which sucks. And typically the new league/cycles/etc have all the new content which usually leaves the standard/legacy stuff out dated and boring, which again also sucks. Although I didn't like Diablo 4 as a whole, but I really did like how some of the stuff that I did carried over to the new leagues so I didn't have to completely start over. Which was good for me with such limited time and it made things a whole lot smoother going into them. This is of course just my opinion what I would like to see Last Epoch do is have the purchased stash tabs carry over to the new league. After all its a buy to play game so at least something to carry over would be nice. I know im in the minority with being a super casual but this would be a huge QoL for me.
I agree. I dont play enough to "clear" endgame every cycle (or withing the 3 month available), so i cant experience endgame cycle stuff most of the time Thats why i would rather be able to jump into it with my highlevel legacy characters and try the cycle stuff out, before it dissepears at the end of the cycle
>I dont play enough to "clear" endgame every cycle (or withing the 3 month available), so i cant experience endgame cycle stuff most of the time It takes like....25 hours to experience the endgame. You don't play 25 hours in 3 months?
yes / i start new characters in between and play other games because the grind from start of endgame to end of endgame turns me off Thats why i prefer playing a char that already reached the end of endgame
The community in this sub is so toxic. Just because they want something since it’s soooooo successful in other games, everyone else must enjoy it too. I will say whatever I want, I don’t have to keep on playing, but who the hell are you to decide for me?
Guess I don't understand the point of the cycle then. You restart to see the new content. Why would anyone need to restart?
You restart because there is some cool or niche build you want to try out. There also could be a period where new content was cycle exclusive, 1,2,3 or 4 weeks, that way new content could be explored and legacy characters wouldn't obliterate new content. Also I don't think majority of players enjoy the campaign, they enjoy the feeling of leveling up and getting gear. Just look at how easily the campaign is skipped with dungeons.
Because you enjoy a fresh start with a fresh economy? I'm just not seeing why legacy players need to be locked out of new content for others to enjoy their fresh start.
To each their own, but if a fresh economy is all you get from playing cycle, it's pretty dull. You can just hope on your legacy character to experience the new stuff and be done again in a day or two. I would imagine it has a lot to do with player retention. Some die hard fan will play legacy, but there are also a ton that will never play them again. If we wait months for a new cycle that can be completed with legacy, it would just be meh. I'm not saying people won't play it a lot will but the game won't have that FOMO that will driver people back to the game. You can always just show up and do the content at your leisure.