Base Mana Reduction.

[Gilver Redgrave]

Please remove that it serves no purpose.

When i have a skill that costs 30 Mana and put 5 points into a node that reduces the Mana costs by 60% then i dont expect the skill to cost 19 Mana now. Who even came up with the idea of adding a base Mana Reduction ?

[kongkim]

Don't get what you mean?
The purpose is it reduce manacost as you say?

[Gnodab]

Because mana costs are more complicated than you think.

You have:

Base Mana Cost
% increase to Mana Cost
Flat increase to Base Mana Cost
Flat Mana Cost Reduction
% Mana Cost Reduction

All of these interact with each other. For instance you can take a 3 Mana spell and increase its Base Mana Cost by 132%; it will cost 7 Mana. But if you take a node that decreases its base mana cost by -3, it now costs 0 mana, because the base mana cost is being modified. And +132% to 0 is still 0. Pretty neat.

If you add +5 flat mana cost to it, it now costs 8 as its new base cost. Increased by 132%, it's now 19 Mana. If you take the -3 base mana cost node, it now costs 12 mana. Because you're lowering the 8 mana base cost to 5, and increasing the 5 by 132%, giving you 12, a reduction of 7 instead of 3.

In short, it's not pointless, and it shouldn't be removed. It's a complex system that's working as intended.

[Gilver Redgrave]

Originally posted by Gnodab:

In short, it's not pointless, and it shouldn't be removed. It's a complex system that's working as intended.

No its a complex system thats not needed.
When a Spell costs 10 Mana and you add flat 10 Mana it costs 20. Easy. If you reduce the cost by 50% now it costs 10 again easy as that. Much simpler and very easy to understand. Also how literally every other game does it.

Same for percentage increases. Mana reduction should always apply to the current amount the skill has and not a base value.

And we can perfectly see that its way to complicated by your comment because in your examples you did not factor in the base mana reduction value which this topic is about. 10% mana reduction isnt actually 10% mana reduction.

Best example for this would be starting as a Ranger and put a point into decreased Mana costs for poison flask. The Skill costs 10 Mana and with that 10% decrease it still costs 10 mana nothing happened. After your next point (which would be 20%) it costs 9 Mana. Because of the base value 10% is actually 20%. And in my example there is nothing elkse included no flat decrease and no other percentage or any other decreases. Its just the base 10 Mana and the 10%. Having a base value for cost decrease is a bad design choice. Its not needed.

[Rosenkrantz (taintedvisage)]

Originally posted by Gilver Redgrave:

Originally posted by Gnodab:

In short, it's not pointless, and it shouldn't be removed. It's a complex system that's working as intended.

No its a complex system thats not needed.
When a Spell costs 10 Mana and you add flat 10 Mana it costs 20. Easy. If you reduce the cost by 50% now it costs 10 again easy as that. Much simpler and very easy to understand. Also how literally every other game does it.

Same for percentage increases. Mana reduction should always apply to the current amount the skill has and not a base value.

And we can perfectly see that its way to complicated by your comment because in your examples you did not factor in the base mana reduction value which this topic is about. 10% mana reduction isnt actually 10% mana reduction.

Best example for this would be starting as a Ranger and put a point into decreased Mana costs for poison flask. The Skill costs 10 Mana and with that 10% decrease it still costs 10 mana nothing happened. After your next point (which would be 20%) it costs 9 Mana. Because of the base value 10% is actually 20%. And in my example there is nothing elkse included no flat decrease and no other percentage or any other decreases. Its just the base 10 Mana and the 10%. Having a base value for cost decrease is a bad design choice. Its not needed.

You've just demonstrated that you don't get it. Again.


Flat increase.
Flat decrease.
Percent increase.
Percent decrease.

10% reduction is, indeed, 10% reduction. It's not a "bad design choice", it's literally the same design as every single other ARPG that exists. 10+2-5+30%-15%=Cost. If you can't understand it, you need to learn. It's a you problem.

[Tensu]

Originally posted by Rosenkrantz (taintedvisage):

Originally posted by Gilver Redgrave:

No its a complex system thats not needed.
When a Spell costs 10 Mana and you add flat 10 Mana it costs 20. Easy. If you reduce the cost by 50% now it costs 10 again easy as that. Much simpler and very easy to understand. Also how literally every other game does it.

Same for percentage increases. Mana reduction should always apply to the current amount the skill has and not a base value.

And we can perfectly see that its way to complicated by your comment because in your examples you did not factor in the base mana reduction value which this topic is about. 10% mana reduction isnt actually 10% mana reduction.

Best example for this would be starting as a Ranger and put a point into decreased Mana costs for poison flask. The Skill costs 10 Mana and with that 10% decrease it still costs 10 mana nothing happened. After your next point (which would be 20%) it costs 9 Mana. Because of the base value 10% is actually 20%. And in my example there is nothing elkse included no flat decrease and no other percentage or any other decreases. Its just the base 10 Mana and the 10%. Having a base value for cost decrease is a bad design choice. Its not needed.

You've just demonstrated that you don't get it. Again.


Flat increase.
Flat decrease.
Percent increase.
Percent decrease.

10% reduction is, indeed, 10% reduction. It's not a "bad design choice", it's literally the same design as every single other ARPG that exists. 10+2-5+30%-15%=Cost. If you can't understand it, you need to learn. It's a you problem.

Honest question, what is the difference between mana efficiency and mana cost? Cause i mean maybe i am dumb but looking in game at his example. Acid flask cost 10 base mana putting 5 points in the node that gives it 50% efficiency in my brain should lower it to 5 mana but it only goes to 7

[Gnodab]

Originally posted by Tensu:

Honest question, what is the difference between mana efficiency and mana cost? Cause i mean maybe i am dumb but looking in game at his example. Acid flask cost 10 base mana putting 5 points in the node that gives it 50% efficiency in my brain should lower it to 5 mana but it only goes to 7

If you have 100% Mana Efficiency, 1 point of mana is equal to 2 mana. So if you have 5 mana with 100% efficiency, you can cast a 10 mana skill. This is reflected in the in-game tooltip as a mana cost reduction, but it's pretty misleading if you don't know that's actually what it's doing.

There's more info here if you want to read it. https://forum.lastepoch.com/t/official-documentation-request-mana-cost-of-skills-mana-efficiency-consistency-of-terminology/46280/4

[Gilver Redgrave]

Originally posted by Gnodab:

but it's pretty misleading if you don't know that's actually what it's doing.

The fact alone that there are guides explaining something that should be very simple pretty much proves my point that its not needed. People praise this game for being less complex then PoE yet you need a damn guide for your mana consumption. x,D

As i said before just keeping regular Mana cost decreases like any other game would do the trick. You dont need to add Efficiency on top of flat and percentage reductiions.

[Gnodab]

Originally posted by Gilver Redgrave:

The fact alone that there are guides explaining something that should be very simple pretty much proves my point that its not needed.

Just because you don't understand it at first glance doesn't mean it's not necessary for balancing the game.

[Gilver Redgrave]

Originally posted by Gnodab:

Just because you don't understand it at first glance doesn't mean it's not necessary for balancing the game.

And making the system less complex with just one stat that does the same thing would break the balance how ? It still does the same without the extra step.

[Tensu]

Originally posted by Gnodab:

Originally posted by Gilver Redgrave:

The fact alone that there are guides explaining something that should be very simple pretty much proves my point that its not needed.

Just because you don't understand it at first glance doesn't mean it's not necessary for balancing the game.

I think there is a issue when you run into situations like this where terms are not clearly defined, I do not know if it is one i would call a balance issue but it is a issue.

If I need to go to a third party website or anywhere outside of the game at all to understand the simple terminology of a stat in the game there is clearly a information issue.

Now on the scale of how urgent fixing something like this is I would say it is on the lower end, However the game is sadly lacking in giving players information in a lot of areas with skills, talents and terms.

[Tiasmoon]

One thing that can be done to make it even easier to understand, is to clarify that flat values adjust the base cost. For Mana Efficiency, also clarify what it actually does.

Not change the way they interacts, but clarify how they interact.

Originally posted by Gilver Redgrave:

As i said before just keeping regular Mana cost decreases like any other game would do the trick.

You can write it a million times, and it still won't become the reality that 'every other game' does it like that. Plenty of games that do allow adjustments of base values.

The reason it isnt that common isn't even to make it simpler for the player, but to make it harder to exploit interactions.

What you are asking for is dumbing down the game mechanics so even an 8 year old can immediately see how they work. I don't think that is a suggestion that benefits the game or its playerbase.

[Quillithe]

The point of mana efficiency instead of mana cost reduction is to weaken multiplicative stacking.

Two -50% cost in effects would drop cost to 25% (or 0 depending on how it's calculated).

Two +100% efficiency effects will always drop cost to 33% which makes them get less out of control.

Of course, I'm not sure reducing mana cost is that strong to start with...

[Gilver Redgrave]

Originally posted by Tiasmoon:

The reason it isnt that common isn't even to make it simpler for the player, but to make it harder to exploit interactions.

Yeah we see how well that worked out didnt we ? x,D

Originally posted by Tiasmoon:

What you are asking for is dumbing down the game mechanics so even an 8 year old can immediately see how they work. I don't think that is a suggestion that benefits the game or its playerbase.

Weird. For PoE its exactly vice versa.
Guess people turn that argument around however it fits their current situation.

Also as another user here said:

Originally posted by Tensu:

I think there is a issue when you run into situations like this where terms are not clearly defined, I do not know if it is one i would call a balance issue but it is a issue.

Doesnt need to be understandable by an 8 year old but in fact by everyone. If i read the global chat there are clearly people with a brain locked in their childhood. So maybe 8 years isnt that bad after all.

[KellionBane]

There's a problem with their math, or at least the way they present it to the player. You can test this out using the Judgement gloves (hand of judgement) and the node that gives mana efficiency (swift verdict). You could be at -14 to costs from gear, and end up getting only -12 mana from your -mana gear.

[Tiasmoon]

Originally posted by Gilver Redgrave:

Originally posted by Tiasmoon:

What you are asking for is dumbing down the game mechanics so even an 8 year old can immediately see how they work. I don't think that is a suggestion that benefits the game or its playerbase.

Weird. For PoE its exactly vice versa.
Guess people turn that argument around however it fits their current situation.

If you are only able to think in binary, then sure.

For those of us that are not limited to binary answers and extremes, the truth or best answer often lies somewhere in the middle.

There is no one answer that applies to everything. Not always fully left, not always fully right. Its always a Ratio.