Gear Rework: opinion poll

Again, per @Swivel suggestion I have taken the liberty of creating a quick poll about it as a way to get a simple and quick summary of everyone’s feelings about the Gear Rework and to make it easier for players who don’t want to participate in the lenghty discussions to give their opinion.

What is your general opinion about the Gear Rework?

  • The current system is not good. No matter how many improvements are done, it will still be worse than the previous system.
  • The current system is not ok due to serious issues. It requires significant improvements to make it better.
  • The current system is ok but it has slight issues. Some improvements are needed to fine tune it.
  • The new system is good as it is. Improvements are welcome but not necessary.
0 voters

My biggest issue with the current system is that there is no way to upgrade a piece of gear. If they add that ability back in I think it’s fine. As it stands right now, my guys are all in the 2400-2600 gear score range and I haven’t upgraded a single piece of gear since the change. I don’t mind a grind, but I need some carrot on a stick for me to keep chasing and as it stands now, there is none.


That is being added back in, sometime next season. Keep in mind though, may be a bit different than it was before, we’ll have to wait for details on how exactly its going to work.


It may be added back in.

I expect it will be, in some form, because so many players were upset with the “upgrade” that took it out - a fair number even just quitting the game - but there’s nothing definite yet.

Jeto called it an “agenda item,” which sounds rather ambiguous to me. Could the “agenda” be to discuss and then dismiss the idea? I don’t know.


We’ll hear something more definite in a month and then, I guess a few months later?, maybe see it returned in some form.

Remains to be seen what that form, if any, is, and whether it’s a substantive part of gameplay or merely an expensive end-game “frill” that will attract and interest no one.


What were probably going to get when/if it’s added back in is an upgrade scale with the current system and with the costs of the old system as well. There is no way the devs will not use this chance to make it even more expensive.

Currently, to bring my sacred mythic gear to the top, requires 24 T-4 relics and all the runes,
and T-1 to T-3 relics below it. The total amount of resources to get to sacred mythic pinnacle
and then top over to Exhalted, what are my requirements then?
Currently, dungeon digging; adventures; hunts; all for the chance to get an unknown piece of gear or unknown spell page to spells I do not use, has vastly decreased my desire to play this game. The so called updates were ridiculous in that they piled problems on top of more problems and took away our ability to control our game growth.
This new system requires a lot of changes to reintroduce the fun it removed.


Changes are coming. We don’t know what they are, and won’t for a month.

It remains to be seen if advancing gear rarity is restored as a core (albeit optional) game mechanic at a reasonable price, or if it’s iimplemented as an end-game high-level-follower sideline that excludes new players and prohibits mid-game players from making regular use if it.

If the latter, I predict it will do little or nothing to expand the customer base beyond the new “gacha” target audience and won’t prevent those who hit the “mid-game doldrums” from drifting away in bored frustration, of the sort you’re reporting.

But I guess we’ll see in a month…

My guess is that Toragon/Gemka/Soulchase will take things to the next rarity, in exchange for aether, follower crystals etc.

This seems likely to me. It could work. However there are two dangers:

1) It might require high-level followers

This would make the mechanic available only to mid- or end-level gamers. Thus failing to attract new customers who would prefer this mechanic (e.g. the sort of customers who were the majority of PQ3’s player base before 3.0.)

The mechanic needs to be available right from the start to give PQ3 the widest possible appeal, which is part of the point – larger customer base = more microtransactions, and more “minnows” getting hooked and “leveling up” to be whales.


2) It might be too expensive

For customers who enjoy the “upgrading” form of advancement (and there are many, to judge by the complaints both on forum and in game chat), this path needs to be reasonable (in terms of material) costs in order to offer a genuine “mode of playing” and not just an expensive one-off that you can only afford to do occasionally.

If it’s just an expensive “frill” around the edges of the new gacha-style-PQ3, it will - rightly - be seen by customers as just a money grab and a complete failure to address the actual complaints. It won’t re-engage alienated customers or attract many additional new ones.

It needs to be something both F2P and whales (and everyone in between) can reasonably pursue as a path to gear improvement, if they’re interested in that mode of play.


For proposals, see here:

I asked previously, and I will ask again - why is a new/mid level player thinking about mythic items?
Another question - why should the game be changed to allow new/mid level players to jump directly to mythic items?

This is not Mario Bros. You can’t jump into a pipe in Level 4 to take you to level 12.


Um … it shouldn’t.

But it was changed to allow that.

That’s what 3.0 — and this new “gacha PQ3” – does with its random drops.

Before, players were encouraged – through gear-rarity improvement – to level up their gear. Now it’s just a slot-machine trying to hit the high-end gear jackpot.

Because that is the “goal” of progression.

Even more so at the moment, when lower-rarity items can no longer be upgraded to higher rarities.

Before 3.0, I was focused on starting to improve epic items to legendary. That improvement, and those legendaries, had both immediate and long-term value to me.

Now I don’t really care about legendaries, because they don’t do much for me – especially as every one I’ve gotten since 3.0 has had worse stats than the epic versions I already had. So I simply trashed them.


Restoring rarity-upgrading to the game will make non-mythic drops more interesting to players, because they again offer the possibility of improving up to higher levels.

Restoring rarity-upgrading to the game will NOT (as you assert) be a change to let mid-level players “jump” directly to mythic items.

Rather, it will give them a reliable path to steadily advance towards that end-game gear. The “stages” along the way become more useful and valued, not less.


“Jump” directly to mythic items?.. That’s what 3.0 and this new slot-machine PQ3 game does

It’s what’s happening now, not what used to happen … nor what I’m encouraging.


You say this like its a bad thing…its not. Before the 3.0 changes it was the same way. You wouldn’t expect someone who just started playing to start making mythics would you? Of course the different stages of crafting will probably be available at different levels for the crafters, and most midgamers shouldn’t have too much problem getting their crafters to level 50.

What I do think would be a good idea for new players though is if every new player got a free month of VIP and premium plus to hook them into playing and then possibly paying for these passes after their initial trial month of benefits has expired. I think that would be a smart way to entice new players into getting into the game.


No, it was not. I doubt that a new player will get a mythic drop before the player is strong enough to start clearing mid to end level content.

Yes, that’s the goal of progression, but let me walk you though the posts here.

If they incorporate follower crystals into the upgrade mechanic it will most likely be for the upgrade from legendary to mythic. To which you say:

Implying that it should be available to new players too. And it should not. Mythic items are for end gamers and it makes perfect sense such mechanic to be available for mid to end gamers.

The reason for this is the generous transition that we had. A new player won’t be in the position that you are in. Here’s why:
Today I opened a chest which gave me a rare weapon with 4000-4200 damage, a legendary weapon with 4700 damage, while all my 2.5 epic weapons have 4900 damage after the transition.

A new player is not going to have these powerful items from the transition and they would care for the legendary drops that they get.

Yes, it is.

One of the problems that’s driving away many (not all) customers is how 3.0 took away “control” of their advancement. Forcing them to advance merely by random drops, rather than (as before - whatever flaws the old system had) by thoughtful, intelligent progression.

That ability should be reintroduced – and reintroduced in a way that is immediately available to new players, so that the ones who like this gameplay will be attracted and stay. Granted, not everyone may be interested in that style. That’s okay.

That, after all, is good game design and business choices – to appeal to a wide variety of player-types and encourage them, of whatever “style,” to invest in and commit to the game.


Where do you get this idea?

Is it in anything I said? No. It is implied? No.

Did new players before 3.0 start making mythics on day 1? No, they did not.

Am I suggesting that they should? No, I am not.

Please react to what I’m actually proposing if you choose to comment on it.


What I’m saying is that the mechanism for gear advancement should be made available to players right away.

But that doesn’t mean they can advance directly to crafting mythics. … As before, a sensible implementation would be to require gathering mats to be able to do that.

Further, as before, the ability to level-up rarity isn’t an all-or-nothing thing.

E.g. A level 5 follower could level rarity up to uncommon. Level 15, up to rare. Level 25, up to epic. 40 up to legendary. 50 up to mythic.

That makes the rarity-improving-mechanism available almost immediately, but still makes level-up-to-mythic a longer-term goal.


Even so, I think it would be stupid to limit rarity-upgrading just to followers.

This is why, elsewhere, I"ve suggested BOTH adding it into the “honing” mechanism, so that it’s ‘immediately’ available to players who want to pursue it, AND offering a “better” or more powerful or more convenient mechanism through higher-level followers that will motivate them to invest in and pursue those longer-term game goals.

1 Like

Except they have been.

Players are reporting opening only level-40 chests and getting mythics.

Part of the problem here may be how we define “new” and “mid” gamers.

I’m thinking of a “mid” gamer as someone who’s at or near level 50, who has advanced at least one hero through the story, and who’s now gotten a “grasp” of the game mechanics and is starting to look ahead to plan how to improve further (e.g. through having well-chosen sets of complementary gear.)

I think the ability to upgrade gear quality should be available before then.

I think some form of it should be available quite early on, to attract customers who - if they’re only advancing through slot-machine mechanic - would otherwise give up on the game as uninteresting to their play style.


I myself have proposed this elsewhere: for the upgrade from legendary to mythic only.

I did not say that having “upgrade to mythic” should be immediately available to new players.

Never. Not once.

Please read and respond to what I’ve actually suggested … otherwise this isn’t a useful conversation. It’s more like politicians posturing with soundbytes for twitter.

What I did say was that the mechanism of upgrading gear should be available to new players, in some form.

So, for example, if lower-rarity gear is upgradeable for only aether, that would meet the goal.

In fact, in my suggestions elsewhere, I"ve also proposed exactly that.


My warning above was explicitly that

  • the mechanic as a whole might require high-level followers (i.e. to do it at all, for any rarity, you’d need a level 45 or 50 follower) – which would be bad.
  • the mechanic might be too expensive to do at all regularly , at any level, which would alienate those potential new customers who would enjoy this ‘route’ of advancement.


A fair point.

They would be more likely to get a legendary drop that improves their epic than would I.

But that legendary would STILL not offer as much of a ‘path’ to the long-term goal of mythic as it did before.

Sure, by improving their stats, they can improve their abilities and so (presumably) improve their chances of getting better drops. That was true before too.

But what that gear doesn’t do is provide an item which can have - with investment of time and resources - its rarity improved, which is what used to make such gear more interesting.


For example, used to be if I had new gear drop - even of lesser rarity - I’d look at it closely to see if its attributes were better than what I was using. Might be that I should level up that piece instead of the one I had, because it’d be a better long term investment. But only because I could improve its rarity.

Now I just trash anything epic or below without even looking at it, because its rarity can’t be improved.


I simply don’t understand this knee-jerk reaction, especially from end-gamers, to the notion that players should be allowed the option of playing the game by upgrading gear rarity.

Doesn’t take away any of the other 3.0 changes. Doesn’t prevent players from going after the slot-machine.

Doesn’t magically let newbies start crafting mythics … if anything, this new gacha PQ3 game is catapaulting newbies into higher-end game gear faster than before… that was one of the express purposes of the 3.0 update.

These different gameplay options can exist side-by-side, without interfering with each other. If anything, they’d complement each other.

And – especially given how many customers have expressed dissatisfaction, even quit the game, over the loss of gear-advancing possibilities – it would achieve the MOST IMPORTANT goal, i.e. of helping the game appeal to a wider audience and, so, attract more paying customers.

What’s so horrible about that?!!

There is a path, its just a path you aren’t super pleased with.

That path is arguably much more streamlined in the past.

  • Get an item from wherever

  • Test it out, love it decide you want something better

  • Grind in the dungeon til you get a little better one

  • Replace item with better one, salvage out the old one that you might have honed up and make it better for you.

  • Rinse and repeat

Yes, a player might have to run slightly off color a while, but that isnt the end all be all on progression and enjoyment. Yes, you might have to hold on to something until you can fix it into a color you like (case and point I was chasing a Mythic weapon in a dungeon to replace my legendary. I got it yesterday but darn its the wrong color. I will hold on to it until I can choose the color with Soulchaser to my build of choice. That is no different than waiting for months on end to hope and pray I get the mythic relics to upgrade a weapon.

Essentially you are asking the development team to code a second game to run side by side with 3.0. For a small game, with a limited base, and probably a small development team thats a large ask.

As far as the topic of what a player is willing to spend, or the revenue they bring in - that is on the development team to decide. Obviously it works for them or they wouldnt offer it (even if some parties feel it is expensive and a bad value).

And a new player coming in today would know no difference in the post 3.0 world. They would be used to playing in the new way and they would continue to play because they like the way they progress. Its a moot point to say that “new players would like the old way better” if they never knew it.

And not just me.

There are many who dislike this random-drop-advance only path … because it’s not the game they signed up for and were enjoying before 3.0.

They - like me - have tried both paths, and don’t like this new one with which the devs have replaced the old one.


So why not simply have both paths.

In fact, the devs have signaled – perhaps because of how wide-spread the outcry against this new gacha-style PQ3 has been – that they may very well intend to support both paths.

Which, I think, is smart of them, provided both paths can realistically be pursued. They shouldn’t have taken out the rarity-upgrading path in the first place.

And, thus, my suggestions on this forum ever since 3.0 dropped, that (a) the path should be restored and (b) some thoughts on how that might be done.


I’m well-aware of the path you outline. It’s obvious.

And if it remains the only path for advancement, I – and many like me – will cease playing and supporting PQ3. Quite a few - even some well-established end-gamers - already have.

Because it isn’t fun any more. Not to us. We don’t like this new path. We don’t want to play if that’s the only reasonable way forward any more.


So just offer both. The old rarity-upgrading one and the new gacha-farming one.

More customers. More income.

Not like I’ve ever suggested taking away the gacha-style gameplay. No … that’s what 3.0 did to us. Was a bad choice.


Not at all.

All my suggestions have required minimal work to make “advance rarity” work seamlessly within 3.0. Not a whole second parallel game, but a parallel track within the existing game.

In fact, my original suggestions were a smaller coding change – just tweak the honing mechanic a little, extending it to include improving rarity level – than the “follower based” rarity-improvement scheme it sounds like they’re actually going to implement (if they implement anything at all.)

So, clearly, this small development team does think it worthwhile to restore that mechanic. Or so it seems. Not surprising, if so, given the level of outcry when they took away that mechanic with 3.0 and implemented an entirely new gacha advancement scheme. … Talk about a whole lot of coding!!


Obviously. Nor have I suggested otherwise.

In fact, that’s what the devs (or management) are probably assuming would happen – that they’d lose a whole lot of their existing customer base, who discovered they were now playing a very different game from the one they liked and stuck with …

… but that they’d attract a whole set of new (and, presumably, higher-paying, or so they must hope) set of customers to what is, arguably, a very different game.


I have suggested that – if that indeed was their plan – that it was a bad plan on 3 counts (discussed in greater detail elsewhere):

  1. It unnecessarily loses existing customers on a gamble that they will be replaced
  2. By going “gacha” style, it puts PQ3 in direct competition with more popular and successful and established “gacha” games, making it that much harder to attract those putative new customers
  3. It creates the “mid-gamer doldrums” which even players who don’t know the previous game will suffer.


#3 above is essentially the observation that, once a player gets over the novelty of the game, figures out its mechanics and how to advance within it, a player’s going to want to start building up well-coordinated gear sets to be able to take on higher enemies / PvP / KD.

And those players are going to quickly discover – whether or not they were around before 3.0 – that, because they’re stuck waiting on random drops – their ability to advance further is very limited.

Yes, there is that tedious “path” you describe – and one of the major flaws of that path (especially for mid-gamers) is that it makes the advancement experience tedious, dull, and boring.

Because – unlike before, when you could make regular gear improvements towards the end-goal of mythic, and feel good about it at each step – now it’s entirely dependent on waiting for good drops, and, in the 99 (or whatever) percent of the time that you don’t get one, it’s negative reinforcement. … It’s what creates those doldrums, making the grind even more frustrating and dull than it was before. Very bad psychology.

And this isn’t just me theorizing, or reporting my individual experience (though it’s that too) … it’s the experience reported by a whole lot of people both on these forums and in-game chat.


You seem so worried that the “development team” can’t handle re-introducing or supporting gear rarity-improving, as if they were incompetent coders, or unable to make substantive changes.

But they’ve already shown they can make big changes to the game … that’s exactly what 3.0 was!!

I have every confidence that they are perfectly able to re-introduce gear-rarity-upgrading into a post-3.0 game – especially as that would require substantially fewer changes than 3.0 itself actually made.

I mean, just from a coding and artistic and support POV, PQ3 is a really good game.

I have major quibbles with some of the new game mechanics, but not with the development abilities the game demonstrates. … That’s part of why I enjoyed playing it, and why I’d like to see it return to something I enjoy and would be willing to invest time and resources on.


And, from the sound of it (though Jeto was rather ambiguous), the dev team may even already be planning on doing this – whether because it was part of an original plan or in response to the huge outcry against this particular aspect of 3.0, who knows.

If so, I’d hope thoughtful player feedback – like the sort I"ve tried to give – would be welcome.

And, if so, I hope that they re-implement it in a balanced and meaningful way, not just some expensive end-game frill, so that they really do attract a wider customer base and enrich the game experience.

Doesn’t matter what “path” there is to advance, or which path you prefer, if the game proves to be unprofitable and is abandoned as part of corporate downsizing!

1 Like

Not really sure why you needed to write a novel in response to me. Its basically just rehashing exactly what you keep saying over and over.

Why post your theories and assumptions as fact? Why say more customers make more money? A new customer to the ecosystem doesnt mean more revenue. Its potential revenue.

People quit games all the time. People quit games they have put a lot of time, effort and money into. Games change (even games that have a recurring cost metric attached to them). Your money you spent was for your enjoyment at the time not necessarily meant to last forever. If a change means that you spend less money, that is your own personal choice.

Many are trying to listen to your suggestions, and even offer reasonable discussion to your posts. It would appear that you do not consider any other POV other than the one you are presenting. I would love to have a rational discussion on the topic that stimulates meaningful changes for the future without responses coming back as “I want it the way I want it and I cant believe that they would change it from the way it was”. Even if that change is being enjoyed by many folks once they got into it and tried. I for one, along with many others are enjoying this new way of getting gear.

As in many things “your mileage may vary”.

Perhaps… Then again, since I’m responding to your repeated observations and opinions, it’s hardly surprising that I might wind up repeating too.

Also, of course, it’s helpful to readers coming in on a tail end of an exchange who may not have the earlier context, yours or mine.

Actually, I’ve been fairly careful to make sure I’m couching things as my opinion, my theories, my perspective. Lots of “if that’s the case” and “I think” and “I find” in my posts.

It should be quite obvious to those who read my posts that, yes, this is one player’s perspective and (I hope) rational reactions. I never pretended otherwise.

Fair enough – I was ‘compressing’ over that progression in the interests of concision. [Insert snorts of laughter from the peanut gallery here.]

Still, I think the point’s sound: appealing to a wider customer base means a larger group of customers who are potentially sources of revenue, which in turn will mean, in all likelihood, more absolute revenue. So there’s the “extended” version, if you prefer it.

And don’t forget the “non monetary” value of an active community – if someone isn’t a whale, or even a minnow, on the financial side, their contributions to the community can still be valuable in creating an environment which attracts more customers.

I can think of several such players. They are of value too.


And if a lot of people have the same reaction, then a lot of people spend less money.

Enough of those, and a company may start to take notice.

They might, for example, add an update 3.1.5 between their planned 3.1 and 3.2 to address what has proved to be a substantial concern! … Just as a hypothetical, of course. Just an opinion.

Yes. You’ve posted as much. As have others. … While at least as many (I think quite a few more, but that’s possibly confirmation bias) have posted how much they dislike the 3.0 changes.

And, if 3.1.5 really is in response to negative feedback, the effect – either in discussions or (more likely) finances, or possibly both – has been enough to make the company sit up and take notice.

That’s a bit more than just one user’s opinion at work there!

Maybe you can try being a little more accurate and less reductive in your characterization.

Try this: “I – and many others – prefer it way A (the old way), and not way B. … How about introducing way A-prime that will appeal to the [apparently large] group of players who would like that mechanic returned, while also preserving way B for those players who perfer the new way.”

That’s a significantly more accurate overview/summary of my opinion.

I’m quite open to discussions about “A-prime”. … Higure, for example, made some cogent points about my original suggestions which caused me to reconsider and rework. A very rational discussion with him.

I’m less receptive to the “discussions” that amount to “B is better, you can’t have A-prime, it’s a stupid and unworkable idea that’s unreasonable to ask the devs to consider.”

And, granted, repetitions of that reaction are likely to get repetitions of my rejoinder, clarifying and explaining why I think that, on the contrary, adding “A-prime” is a perfectly reasonable suggestion, from both gameplay and financial perspectives.

I appreciate everyone sharing their feedback about the upcoming rework and past gear rework update.

Writing great constructive pieces of feedback is immensely valuable to me and the team! But it’s getting difficult and time-consuming to read through quote upon quote about why a sentence someone else said is being disagreed with or is “wrong”