8 months ago - EHG_Kain - Direct link

Hello Travelers,

In between attempting to save the citizens of Eterra, and eradicating them, almost 70,000 of you have joined in with your voices to discuss mid-cycle balance changes. The turnout for this survey has been fantastic; and further, is in addition to the many discussions here on the forums and other platforms on the topic. We want to first thank you all for your enthusiasm on this topic driving it forward.

Today, we want to share the results of the survey, as well as the decisions which have come as a result of the feedback.

LE_Steam_1.0-MidCycleSurvey-RECAP1440×3350 5.93 MB

For the purpose of reading the below results, the following information can help:

  • Scale:
    • 1 - Strongly Disagree
    • 2 - Disagree
    • 3 - I have no opinion on this topic
    • 4 - Agree
    • 5 - Strongly Agree
  • When we first started the survey, the scale was in reverse. We received immediate feedback about this, and swapped it before too many results came in. While the results below do not reflect this change, we made this change very early into survey so it had minimal impact on the results

Overperforming Bugs

image1600×759 85.2 KB

With over 74% of all votes in the survey crushing the other options, as well as in written feedback, the stance from the involved community is fairly clear. We should be fixing bugs which cause skills or items to highly overperform, and as such, will be doing so. This is a change from our previous stance where we didn’t want to alter balance mid-cycle. Now, if it’s the case of a bug, we will be pushing out these fixes in mid-cycle patches.

Mildly Overperforming Bugs

image1600×759 91.3 KB

In the case of a bug resulting in a build, skill, or item mildly overperforming, there’s a much less clear stance. From written feedback, it’s a bit clear as to why: What is “mildly” overperforming? Being a bit of a vague categorization, it’s left up to an individuals interpretation.

We have decided in this case to use case-by-case discretion. This would be based on feedback we’re seeing in the community, and just how far the bug results in a power shift. So we may chose to, or not to fix bugs which are ‘mildly’ overperforming mid-cycle and will discuss them as they arise.

Overperforming Balance

image1600×812 93.3 KB

On the other hand, if a build is overperforming, but not caused by a bug, the feedback has largely weighted towards “do not change”. While not quite as one sided as with bugs, this is still a fairly strong sentiment from the community with over 57% voting not to make these changes. This also matches our existing stance as well, in not taking too many steps to alter balance mid-cycle. As such, we’ll be avoiding balance changes which are not bug related, even if it’s resulting in a build, skill, or item highly overperforming.

Mildly Overperforming Balance

image1600×812 95 KB

As one might expect, as the power from something not bug-related becomes less impactful, the desire is even less for changes to be seen to them. Weighted quite heavily towards no changes, we agree with this stance and will not be making balance changes mid-cycle which are not bug related, and only result in the skill, build, or item mildly over-performing.

Mid-cycle Leaderboard Reset

image1600×812 108 KB

In the event that we release a change or bug-fix which was resulting in an item, skill, or build to overperform, the desire for leaderboards to reset has been quite mixed. We discussed this a fair amount, and have made the following determination: We will not reset leaderboards in this instance, however, we will instead add information to the entry to indicate when the entry occurred. The goal of this being to make the information available to identify entries which may have used a build that has since changed.

We decided against a mark or icon on the entry indicating it was an overperforming build, as we didn’t want these to appear as a “mark of shame”. We felt this was the best way to be able to allow competitive players to continue competing on the leaderboards, without taking away other player’s previous hard work on their builds, even if they were overperforming.

Partial Leaderboard Reset

image1600×812 117 KB

While the above answer also addresses this question, for consistency we want to show the results of all of your votes here.

Notifications via public posts

image1600×812 98.3 KB

To everyone’s surprise, it looks like almost everyone agrees that receiving notifications about upcoming balance altering bugfixes or changes is a very strong desire. As we’ve been showing this last week since we started getting feedback on the survey, we fully agree with this, and will start trying to provide more head’s up when these changes are coming.

Though with this, we will still reserve the right to not provide information regarding the upcoming change if: Doing so would result in players rushing to take advantage causing severe issues, or we could release the fix almost as fast as releasing the notification that the fix is coming

So for these changes, if we feel we can release the information in full about the change, we’ll do so. Otherwise, we may try to be more vague (such as with the Infernal Shade infinite damage bug) to limit its impact before the change, or we may withhold it completely if it’s something which is regularly crashing servers when it’s utilized to minimize its impact until we can get it fixed.

Conclusion

This round of discourse with the community has resulted in some great changes to our stances that we’re quite happy with. The two big changes here being:

  • We will release fixes mid-cycle for bugs which result in an item, skill, or build highly overperforming
  • We will add leaderboard functionality displaying which specific patch, or timespan an entry happened during.

Once again, we’d like to thank everyone for your involvement in Last Epoch, and taking the time to make your voices heard. It’s with all of your feedback we’ve made Last Epoch as great as it is, and is only by continuing to work with the community and listening to feedback that we’ll continue to improve.

Until next time, may RNG be with you Travelers!

8 months ago - EHG_Kain - Direct link

At least not initially - we don’t have the space in the scope to fit it in for 1.1, but it’s definitely something we’ll be looking at.

8 months ago - EHG_Kain - Direct link

Is it doing what it says it should? If not, it’s a bug. DuckWho beat me to it, but confirming from us as well :slight_smile:

8 months ago - EHG_Kain - Direct link

The reason we felt both questions were answered by the one system change was that we feel that having the information with the entries works in both situations. While it is correct that the majority of responses indicated that they wanted a partial reset, we felt that with the system of being able to track when an entry occurred, that would not be the case. So the results are different, the system change / extra information carries over as it supports groups from both questions. I apologize that it felt like we were saying the distribution of responses was the same.

8 months ago - EHG_Kain - Direct link

As answered above, we don’t have the space in the scope to fit it in for 1.1, but it’s definitely something we’ll be looking at.

8 months ago - EHG_Kain - Direct link

Somewhat - The information will be there for anyone to ignore entries they want to ignore. We aren’t able to scope in to 1.1 filter and backend service coding for changing what results get returned to the leaderboards for a better supported UX for those players.

8 months ago - EHG_Kain - Direct link

As it does what it says it’s supposed to, even being overpowered, it’s then not a bug and something we would look to change at the start of a cycle rather than mid-cycle.

8 months ago - EHG_Kain - Direct link

Without as strong of words, I don’t really disagree. If we didn’t agree to at least some extent, there would be no reason for us to look at filters in the future!

8 months ago - EHG_Kain - Direct link

Because we don’t like promising things we haven’t started to look into yet so don’t know enough to say if it may even be possible.

8 months ago - EHG_Kain - Direct link

We will continue to make changes and bug-fixes which result in a buff.

8 months ago - EHG_Kain - Direct link

Sorry, are you saying you believe making changes/bug-fixes which result in a buff mid-cycle would be controversial and should be surveyed?

(this wasn’t covered in the survey because as mentioned, our stance is to continue making changes/bug-fixes mid-cycle which result in a buff, and we didn’t think that would have much opposition)

8 months ago - /u/ekimarcher - Direct link

Originally posted by d43dr4

While I agree those were stupidly strong and needed to be nerfed, calling the smoke/dive bomb thing a bug is stretching it. Abuse of overpowered ability combo sure, but not really a bug.

It did exactly what the tooltip said it would do: Extend the duration of smoke bomb per falcon landing there.
I don't think it's fair to shame players who used that as "bug abusers".

This is where the line becomes a little blurry. It didn't do what the design documents say it should do. It also didn't do what I was telling people pre-patch. I got this question a lot actually. So we designed it to only work once, we told people it would only work once but then in game, it worked many times.

So it's kinda, how much do you trust that it was supposed to be only once? I don't think the design docs keep a history of when individual pieces were added but I just went to check the original version and it says:

Cloud Gatherer If the Falcon lands within the area of your Smoke Bomb, the Smoke Bomb gains 40% increased total duration. This effect can occur once per Smoke Bomb. (0/1)

But then on the other hand, plenty of things get changed intentionally between the design document and final release.

Now, I do actually know what happened with this one because I'm the idiot that let it happen in the first place. It was a bug.