Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PandynatorDD

New party system does not improve public matches.

Recommended Posts


@Dreizehn quote:

About what Nefhith has been writing: I haven't played for quite a long time. My responses on the surveys count as much as those from people who are playing on a daily basis. Actually I did not feel as if I could express what is inconvenient to me anyway because the possibilities to answer felt a bit 'narrow'. Maybe that's just my impression and TE just wanted to receive feedback for a specific thing without revealing too much... which would be quite understandable.

Which adds to my point. Nothing against you, by far, but is it fair for players who play everyday to have their forum posts dismissed while a player who hasn't played for (months? you didn't specify, but I will assume so, correct me if I'm wrong!) a long time has more powr than them in the future of the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Nefhith quote:


-snip-

Well said and i agree. I dont know about the data the devs are getting or how theyre evaluating it, but in my personal experience( and the majority of my friends in game)  Multiplayer atm isnt friendly to no one(not even to the new player and to the end game player), bc of that i just do MP with some close friends who are climbing for AP. Protean Update and the new MP incentives are really good imo(made me get back to the game), but we need some better public lobby management imo. Just my opinion anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Nefhith quote:


@Dreizehn quote:

About what Nefhith has been writing: I haven't played for quite a long time. My responses on the surveys count as much as those from people who are playing on a daily basis. Actually I did not feel as if I could express what is inconvenient to me anyway because the possibilities to answer felt a bit 'narrow'. Maybe that's just my impression and TE just wanted to receive feedback for a specific thing without revealing too much... which would be quite understandable.

Which adds to my point. Nothing against you, by far, but is it fair for players who play everyday to have their forum posts dismissed while a player who hasn't played for (months? you didn't specify, but I will assume so, correct me if I'm wrong!) a long time has more powr than them in the future of the game?

Sorry, I have made an edit but you were faster.

No offense taken at all - that's exactly what I am meaning: I have far less insight into the game compared to most of the forum users.

It is hard to tell when I have actually played for the last time. From time to time I hop in and try but I don't want to play solo and the way public games are working is putting me off. (I don't want to look for people - I want to start a map and see who joins AND have a chance to defend against trolls) The last time I have really played was before any shard has made it into the game. When they were introduced I have sold all my gear, deleted all characters and played the campaign. Then I got frustrated about the public games and quit again. (well... I'm no solo player)

Sorry... got carried away a bit. What I wanted to say: I have received notifications about the surveys even without looking at the forums or being active. If I remember correctly it was possible to win something by taking part, so there is no reason why inactive people should not take part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Nefhith quote:


Which adds to my point. Nothing against you, by far, but is it fair for players who play everyday to have their forum posts dismissed while a player who hasn't played for (months? you didn't specify, but I will assume so, correct me if I'm wrong!) a long time has more powr than them in the future of the game?

Your feedback was never at any point in time dismissed. It was said that it isn't the majority of games, and that we're still taking all the feedback we get on public games to find a good middle ground for any future changes. You or Dreizehn are both equally valued when it comes to feedback. 

As for your suggestion(s) offered, I presented a counter point that plenty others have brought up (including a post you responded to). That's not dismissing your pain points, just that the suggestion doesn't necessarily change things for the better, and could potentially lead to more problems for more players.

The original response I made to this thread addressed the main point, being that changes to one system are not going to be the remedy for another system. Even the current title still points that out. Party system changes are not meant to primarily address public game systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Dreizehn quote:

 you were faster

I'm too used to hearing this :'(

Jokes aside, sorry, I completely misread your post. Still, this is what many people has been saying about the game. Trendy has been building *on top* of already existing mechanics, instead of fixing previous ones and building parallel to them. The game has slowly started to become a rabbithole of features to make the end game deeper and deeper instead of actually adding features you can find as soon you start the game, which leaves new players with the game as it was several years ago besides a few tweaks/fixes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Nefhith quote:


@Dreizehn quote:

 you were faster

I'm too used to hearing this :'(

Jokes aside, sorry, I completely misread your post. Still, this is what many people has been saying about the game. Trendy has been building *on top* of already existing mechanics, instead of fixing previous ones and building parallel to them. The game has slowly started to become a rabbithole of features to make the end game deeper and deeper instead of actually adding features you can find as soon you start the game, which leaves new players with the game as it was several years ago besides a few tweaks/fixes.

We are developing new systems, of course, but I disagree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that we are not fixing/improving previous systems and building parallel to them. Just a short list:

  • Mods added to gear from the beginning of the game, to the upper echelons. Give gear meaning and make it more interesting for all players, new and veteran.

  • Crafting system allowing players to keep the gear they like.

  • Upgrade system allowing players to help get over difficulty bumps they may encounter, at all levels.

  • Shortening campaign to get players into other game modes, providing adventures as an alternative if players aren't ready for Onslaught/Expeditions.

  • Bank system added via Vaults (players received at least one, if not two, for free).

  • Adding Expeditions for more choice/freedom.

  • Player shops available to all players.

  • Buyback system created to benefit all players.

There's even more that could be listed, and much more to be expanded upon, but I wanted to keep it shorter for the sake of brevity. These were big system changes that weren't focused on making the end game deeper. 

The changes coming to parties, Onslaught, new maps, and new enemies are also not aimed to making the end game deeper. Adding deeper end game stuff than what we currently have is a goal, of course, but we want to make sure that we continue to address and add features for as many different types of Defenders as we can.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Dreizehn quote:


@RustyCounterweight quote: 

From what I have read, lawlta has stated that no players is actually hosting a public game and that's one of the reasons why they should not have those rights. Please correct my if I took this wrong.

From what I understand, no player at DD2 is hosting anything at all because the game is totally server sided. From that point of view, I see DD2 sessions/games/session browsers similar to a Teamspeak Server. Public chats but you can create your own rooms where you can kick people if they misbehave (or - to be fair - if you are an idiot, you can kick them for no reason).

I have been kicked at DD1 quite often for no reason and I tried to remember those players' names so I did not join them again at a later time. If there had been a black list/ignore list, this would have been a lot easier.

I should start by saying that I'm not going to bother with arguing Semantics with anyone in a forum, so if you disagree with my explanation then please interpret it as perspective [and know that I wont bother to argue definitions with you].  

But, for clarity's sake, I was in no way referring to someone literally "hosting" a game in a technical sense.   From my reading of waht Lawlta was saying, the tem "host" was used to refer to the technical aspects of connecting players together for an online multiplayer game.   I used the term "host" to relate the concept of "a person who receives or entertains others as guests" as applied to the specific situation of initiating a game in DD2 that is open for anyone to join.  

Unfortunately, I cant think of a less wordy [and still accurate] way to refer to the relationship between a person who initiates an instance of a game [essentially a host] and leaves it open for other to join [effectively  providing a public invitation to anyone to join].

-----

For clarity's sake;

From reading the other posts in this thread, I believe that the term "host" has been predominantly used in a similar, if not the same, way as I used it.   As a result, I proposed a solution from a perspective that interprets the "host" of the game broadly.   Specifically, if you use the non-technical definition that I intended then a "host" effectively exists in both public and private games.   In both instances, the "host" would be the person who initiated the map.

Since I'm already clarifying my prior post, ill be completely clear [and make another, subtle, point];

The proposition that I previously put forth was effectively that the menu system could be used to create a compromise situation.   That compromise being that the current system be maintained in its existing state, but that more options can be added when hosting  initiating an instance of any particular map(herein after "host").  

The application of said solution would be that players people who choose to interact with a computer game type of computer program(hereinafter "player") who wants to host could gain the desired amount of control over games that they host, without precluding any public games games open for any player to join (hereinafter "public games") from being crated without said control being included.   Games hosted with the extra options would advertise describe or draw attention to themselves(here in after "advertise") by including indicators on the map browser.

The effect would be that players who want more control get to host games with more control, players who don't want more control get to host games without it, and anyone looking to join link or connect to(hereinafter "join") games that they did not host get some insight into how the host wants to conduct the public game and therefore avoid negative interactions.

-----

I should clarify that I intentionally left the specifics of my proposed solution ambiguous because I was only attempting to put forth one potential path to compromise which, if adopted in any way, would required more considerations than I could count for.


In any event, I hope that I clarified my prior post to your satisfaction (and if i didn't .....too bad)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I make a public game its to help other players who may be struggling. I expect them to drop mana and let me quickly build. I dont need them in the party to complete the content, they are only there because I made a public game to help them.

If players are afking, or hording their mana, or building crap builds in lanes and wasting DU it affects the entire party and gets toxic quick.

The party changes discussed here dont address that so the reality is the majority of experienced players will still just make private games, leaving newer players to deal with that toxicity.

We want to help other players, but on our terms. If i am going out of my way to slow down my play to help others then let me control games I make. Give us the tools to do that or we will continue playing private games and this game will still look dead everytime you seach for public games (common complaint of new people thinking no one plays currently).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Nigiri_Toro quote:

The party changes discussed here dont address that so the reality is the majority of experienced players will still just make private games, leaving newer players to deal with that toxicity.

They're not supposed to. As has been said multiple times, the party system changes are to make parties better. Not public games.

To repeat, again, we hear the feedback on public games. We're adding a Play Now option and need to see how this system functions on a larger scale before we make any sweeping control changes to public games. It would be very cavalier to do so, leading to much larger problems.

That said:

@Nigiri_Toro quote:

I expect them to drop mana and let me quickly build. I dont need them in the party to complete the content, they are only there because I made a public game to help them.

If players are afking, or hording their mana, or building crap builds in lanes and wasting DU it affects the entire party and gets toxic quick.

We want to help other players, but on our terms. If i am going out of my way to slow down my play to help others then let me control games I make. Give us the tools to do that or we will continue playing private games and this game will still look dead everytime you seach for public games (common complaint of new people thinking no one plays currently).

There's a lot of issues here. You want to help someone, which is great, but you're not helping them become better, just carrying them through content. A major point of feedback currently is that players receive a lot of spam demanding carries. Offering an avenue to carry even more without increasing skill, causes players to continue, as you said, "building crap builds in lanes". This leads to them getting to end game content, not prepared and somewhat lazy, leading to more hording mana, afking, and building/upgrading poorly.

The inverse of this is that a player wants to learn, sees a game listed by a veteran, and joins. They build in lane, the veteran doesn't like their "bad" build, and kicks them without a word (feedback we've received happened quite a bit in DD1). This then leads to them having a negative public experience, either going into private games themselves, or too afraid to contribute in fear of getting kicked, leading to a negative experience and quitting. Toxicity can be on both sides.

This'll be my last point on this topic. There is a good middle ground to be found, regarding varying controls, systems to prevent toxicity, and ways to communicate what certain public games contain (leader who wants to build, looking for builders, etc). The party system changes are not that.  They're to address a ton of feedback we've received about party inconsistencies on all platforms, and getting a group of players from A -> B faster and more effortlessly. That's it. We're constantly monitoring our public game behaviors, and are going to continue to develop them. It just takes time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right, that is just carrying people through content. The idea would be that if they see specific builds in action they will try to reproduce them but maybe thats just wishful thinking and if theres an avenue to just get carried players will never learn to build for themselves.

Also to be fair I kinda skimmed over this thread before responding so I missed the part about this not addressing private/public game issues so my bad :)

Communication in this game is almost non existent on console unless we make a party chat (at least PC can type to each other) so it makes some of these issues more complex. Ideally I think your last paragraph touches on the potential solution. 

If im a player that needs help building - a public game with a looking for builder flag 

If im a player that wants to be the only builder - a public game with a dps only flag

If I want to play with people on my same level - some way to filter players out besides GS and parties work as they do now

etc...

The only thing needed on top of that is how to deal with toxic players who try to circumvent those settings.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Nigiri_Toro quote:

Also to be fair I kinda skimmed over this thread before responding so I missed the part about this not addressing private/public game issues so my bad :)

RUDE! <3

We completely get that communication is lacking, and want to make it substantially better. Just requires enough investigation to find the best solution.

As for the toxic behavior, we are somewhat addressing one of the more "trolly" behaviors. For instance, getting to last wave, and the builder leaves, and causes you to fail. While that sucks, with replay from wave, you only deal with a slight time delay of their toxicity, and can get back into the game.

Our goal is to curb as many of these instances as possible. We'll have more to come over time. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[[177754,users]] I think either I have written my thoughts in a unintelligible/bad way or you have taken me wrong. What I wanted to say is referenced in the first paragraph you have quoted from my post. Somehow it sounded to me as if the 'official TE statement' was that the players we call 'host' won't receive additional rights because they are not actual hosts (in a technial way). That's what my 'please correct me if I'm wrong' was about. Thanks though for your explanation and sorry I made you think I needed that. ^^

Maybe I'm just burnt from the past because there has been a time (maybe ~2 years ago, not quite sure) when people complaint in a way like 'I have started the map, so I want to prevent trolls from join...' a former gamedesign manager for DD2 has answered that those, who start the map, are no hosts and that's why no implementation of additional rights next to the current vote kick (that was introduced a bit earlier) are intended. People called the 'leader' host because it was more convenient and the answer was a bit like 'no rights because no host'. Sorry if you felt as if this was aiming at you. I guess I have reacted to this subconsciously.


...can someone help me out with the question below, please?

@Dreizehn quote:

A thing I have not realized yet: If I am a party leader, we are a party of 4 and in the middle of a combat wave - if I kick a player from the party, is he also kicked/banned from our game (or even our matchmaking) or is that player only removed from the party and stays on the same map we are currently playing?

Sorry if this have been clarified - I could not find the information.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@LAWLTA quote:


@Nigiri_Toro quote:

Also to be fair I kinda skimmed over this thread before responding so I missed the part about this not addressing private/public game issues so my bad :)

RUDE! <3

We completely get that communication is lacking, and want to make it substantially better. Just requires enough investigation to find the best solution.

As for the toxic behavior, we are somewhat addressing one of the more "trolly" behaviors. For instance, getting to last wave, and the builder leaves, and causes you to fail. While that sucks, with replay from wave, you only deal with a slight time delay of their toxicity, and can get back into the game.

Our goal is to curb as many of these instances as possible. We'll have more to come over time. :)

U can fix a game, but u can't fix people. Thank you team trendy for doing your best to minimize there toxic behavior. I know your probably alread working hard to make pubs better, just gonna take time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...