Jump to content

The Ich

Defender-In-Training
  • Content Count

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

The Ich last won the day on November 26 2019

The Ich had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

57 Excellent

About The Ich

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. And you missed the point of ModularModulo post entirely. If you cannot trust the client, it does not matter if the save files are located on a server or locally. The server-side save files are (just) used because they are essential for crossplay functionality. You login into your account from any device, the server sends you your data, you play and report changes to your data back to the server. But here lays the problem: You have to assume that the client is hacked and therefor not trustworthy. A modified client could tell the server "Hey, I have found this amazing item, please add it to my save file". As long as it has legit stats, there is no way to tell if the client has actually played the game or just called the (modified) "generateLoot" function. Actually there are ways to prevent or notice this and I already have suggested a very basic way, which is inspired by real-world cryptographic systems. But the point is, you can make a really complex system, which could still be circumvented at one point or you simply do not trust the client at all and ensure that all important calculations are done in a secure and controlled enviroment (-> server-side). The first sentence is just wrong or let's say it will completely depend / rely on the client integrity protection. In that case the safety aspect is just pushed to a different level.
  2. I can only encourage the game developers to use the extension of the Beta for providing newer test builds. This would be a great opportunity for them to show that they are listening to all the feedback by implementing and improving certain features. The community has already shown their willingness to provide tons of productive feedback and this can only make the final game better.
  3. The active builder bonus is +33.333% tower damage. Or if you look at it as a loss of damage when switching to a DPS char it means -25% damage. Personally I do not mind, if a DPS char is a bit more advantageous than the pure builder bonus, because you have to play actively the whole time to make use of it. A builder char can also be useful, repair and upgrade stuff and he can use passive abilities (monk tower boost) or block/tank lanes (squire). In DD1 I was playing a hybrid char for quite a long time and it worked well. I was never as strong as my friend (pure DPS), but I could get things done and the active builder bonus made up for it. To be fair, we also had exactly this in DD1 as well, when the Barbarian first came out. It outclassed all other DPS chars by a good margin and everyone was playing barbarians for a while, until new content (like weapons) brought the other classes back in line. I understand, that they wanted to promote new content/DLCs and powercreep is not a bad thing in a DD game - just part of the progression. But it leaves a bad taste, if it is always connected to a real-money purchase. Iff splitscreen results in 4 times the loot, due to instanced loot, it will be a solo game in any case. Getting the active builder bonus from multiple of your chars is just the cherry on top. This is the reason why I strongly promote the idea, that one account should only get one times the loot (playing splitscreen on the same account should give you a shared lootpool, like DD1). This would eliminate the need of splitscreen-farming and additional AFK-chars - just for the active builder bonus - might not be worth it, since the difficulty scales with the number of players/heroes.
  4. The extreme size - as it is - is definitely a bug. But there must be a reason, why only the last wave chest is affected. Maybe it is supposed to be a special chest, which should be a bit bigger than the normal chests, but someone got the parameter wrong (a 0 too much or something like this). Or maybe the chest should be a different object (with different textures) but so far it is just a copy of the existing chest object, but the scaling was reset to default. If it would be instanciated like every other chest, it would also have the same attributes including size. For the release version it could mean, that map rewards won't be automatically added to your inventory, but you would have to collect them from the final "special reward chest".
  5. I disagree with this idea. That would be a nightmare. It would completely take out any incentive to get better gear in the endgame to make farming more easy. Why would I farm gear, if I can beat the map with an active playstyle - which I would have to use anyway - already? One of the motivating factors to strive for the best possible gear is definitely to make farming easier and easier for yourself, up to a point, where you have overleveled the content so much, that it becomes semi- and eventually completely afk-farmable. It amplifies the feeling of becoming more powerful. I already do not like the copters and sharks too much in DD1, because they hard-counter certain defenses and are forcing you to use a very specific setup to counter them. Well, I guess you would use minion walls, reflection beams and gas traps anyway, but still having mobs that hard-counter certain defenses will massively restrict your choices of defenses. Speaking of the gas traps and enrage aura - these defenses are completely op against certain type of mobs, because they can perma-stun them or hold them in place. This leads to a situation, where certain mob types become completely irrelevant and reduces the threat to those, that are immune against these defenses. I would rather have a (almost) non-stoppable armee of (all kind of) mobs pushing at my defenses, so that also the sheer number of (trash) mobs would increase the pressure. DMG and especially HP scaling might have to be tuned down a bit, but it would still be a more interesting experience than having tons of mobs with millions of HP - you would never be able to deal with, if they would all charge at your defenses at once - slowly dieing in a spot. Yeah, exactly this. That's why we have challenges and lots of other different gamemodes in the game. Also an active playstyle with a DPS char will always be more powerful than just an active builder. But that's ok - it is a good way to compensate for a non-optimal build or too low stats.
  6. As a compromise, I would suggest to allow joining any game at any time, but you would not get any loot nor rewards for the next 3 (full) waves, if you joined at a later point and the game is already running for a while (> 3 waves). This would prevent someone from just joining at the very end to grab rewards like pets, but it still allows you to rejoin a longer game after being disconnected or if your friends started playing earlier. So for instance if your friend is already at wave 18, you could join him and would profit from the good loot once you reach the higher waves together. And if your friend is already at wave 29 out of 30, you would not get any loot anymore - but in this case it won't take long to finish the game and start over. Well, even with the current system you could add an exception and allow rejoining, if you have been part of that game during the last 15 min or so. *all numbers are just examples*
  7. Well, I meant it as I said it. Not as a feeling but as a fact. This thread is a prime example that a splitted community is not only a thing but also a really hot topic. And this situation is a result of certain decisions, that have been made by the company and not by players. Sure the developers would like everyone to love the things they are creating - who would not want that? - but if you are changing too much at once, you might attract new players but also risk to lose the things, that your existing playerbase loved about the original concepts. And this is exactly what has happened with DD1 and DD2. So how would you design your next game, i.e. DDA? I think it is an easier thing to get a newer player, who only played DD2 so far, into playing a game, that goes more into the DD1 direction than vise-verse. If they would make another game based on DD2, they would definitely lose a specific and not insignificant part of their playerbase, especially if you consider, that DDA is no longer using a free-2-play model but the classic one-time-purchase+DLC again. I am trying to interpret this statement in different ways, but in any case the result is ridiculous. Are you saying, someone does not qualify "as a pro" for you, if he has not played for a while? Or was something in that game so fundamentally changed, that the "old pros" would have trouble to catch up again? I don't even know, what's the point of this statement, so let's not go there any further. That's a good statement and one of the main reasons, why I stopped playing DD1 at one point. We already had another big thread about the topic of "hacking" and I cannot emphasize enough, how important this will be for the long term success of DDA or any DD-titel in general. Sure, there is still a very dedicated core playerbase in DD1, which has found ways to deal with this problem and work around it to certain limitations. There are certain event items, directly given out by admins, people use trading-trace-lists for these items and you have to sign up for these events. People are censoring parts of their items to avoid duping. That is so much hassle a honest player has to go through in order to play the (end-)game. But the whole system is still extremely vulnerable, if there is someone a bit more clever than the dumb "everything-9999-values-hacker". Back then I was also setting up my own afk-shops, having items on the ground for additional tradings. And I exactly remember one occassion, where someone came in and complained about my prices being so high. I chatted with that person for a while and he claimed that he bought the gear he was wearing (which was borderline-hacked) for much less (using this as an argument to lower the price of one of my best offered sets) and that he could easily get even better stuff for little (real) money somewhere else. The whole conversation was pretty weird and also pointless. Why did he not just leave my shop? But it made me very clear, that I was just wasting my own time trying to compete with others, who were offering their - obviously much better - hacked stuff. I think I stopped playing DD1 a short time after Lab Assault was introduced. The rewards of this map were just completely overpowered. Within a couple of runs you could get stuff like ultimate armors, for which I had farmed hours of survivals before. I had the feeling, that the balance was completely thrown of with it, devalueing everything I had done so far. Also I could afk-farm all of the existing maps on nmmmhc with ease, so there was little motivation to continue at that point. The take-home message of all of this is - and to also get back to DDA - that the success of DDA will depend on many core-pillars and to point out 3 very important ones: • preventation of hacked stuff and cheating • overall balance and the "right" difficulty • item and loot system (i.e. the rareness of really good stuff; the "endless" strive for better gear; the right amount of randomness, giving you exciting and rewarding moments in an appropriate time) And the main problem (I have) with the current Beta is, that we cannot judge any of these aspects yet, due to the very limited nature of the Beta. I only see an indication, that loot is much more generous mainly due to the lack of overrolling stats (into negative ones). Iff this is compensated by the actual rareness of certain rarities it might be even a good thing (something that is super rare, but if it actually drops eventually, it has a good chance of being at least decent). If on the other hand the game is overwhelming you with good loot, than we will just have another DDE. I could continue here for a while, but most of the sentences would have to begin with an "if", because the beta just does not give us the necessary information.
  8. @fluffycalico asked a simple question. Does he need your permission for that? I am not sure, why you are immediately reading your negative thoughts into this. There is no need to "try to divide the community". The community already is and has been divided by Trendy themselves, by making DD2 a completely different game. And now it is up to them and only them to decide, which part of the community they want to keep, because let's be real: DD1 and DD2 are so different, that you cannot make everyone happy. They would have to bend so much in each direction, that the resulting product would be a very chaotic mix. Just to make sure, I never said that you cannot like both games. But in general I am seeing more contrary opinions or at least clear preferences to one or the other.
  9. I am going to disagree with you, I did an successful afk run on insane labs survival up to 25. Though I repaired the auras after each wave. Little hint: You do not have to place the ensnare and especially the strength drain aura so much to the front. If they are a bit behind the e-aura and enrage, you save tons of HP/s. Also spending a few extra points in tower HP certainly helps (and was needed); I did it with level 48 chars, so with level 70 you should have plenty of additional stats.
  10. That's easy to say... but having hacked gear around won't stop the feeling that everything you do, all the time you invest to grind your stuff, is somehow devalued. Furthermore if things get really out of control, hackers could also manipulate your equipment or resources - stuff like this has already happened in other, much bigger games. A subscription model to finance a "ranked server" could theoretically be a way. But I doubt, that this niche game would have the numbers in players over a prolonged time to maintain it. And when you pay montly for a game, you also expect further development and content... and that is not the business model a small studio can afford. CG will go the classic route with a one-time-purchase and maybe some DLCs in the future with additional content. Well, of course it has to be programmed correctly. But if all the important calculations are server-side and the client is just a dumb input/output method, then there is practically not much an attacker could do, unless of course he gets access to the server. But that's a completely different level than doing some save file manipulations or memory injections. I honestly hope, that they do a bit more than just a few "checks". I have already proposed a basic scetch of an idea back in the Kickstarter forum, how you could have legitimately generated gear only, which would also work offline. The only problem is, that you cannot control, how much gear might be generated, but that would require tinkering with the executable and there are methods to make that harder/detectable. The point is, things can be done, if you invest some time into figuring out a good design. There is definitely no 100% safety, but the more you invest, the more sophisticated an attacker has to be. What's also important is the reputation of the company. And Trendy/CG haven't done a lot in the past to show off much or even any effort in this regard. So that's why it is only understandable, that many people here are very concerned about this topic.
  11. C:\Users\<USERNAME>\AppData\Local\DDS\Saved\SaveGames\DDA_Player_0.esv That's your savegame right there. It looks like a simple serialized file. The first line includes a hash value, which is probably synchronized with the server. If that is their best effort so far, I have not much hope. On the other side the protection might be implemented on a different level. I could think about a way to have a completely unprotected xml file, but the loot would still be savely generated and any modification would be detectable, when synchronizing with the server again. How can you assume, that "the vast majority" would like this and that? Could you please stop making up statistics on the spot or overgeneralizing your standpoint? Besides this, you are basically asking for conflicting goals. You won't get an absolutely secure, hack-free game, which can also be played offline. Although you can definitely make things hard enough, so that breaking them would not be worth the effort or costs. DD2 does not only have server sided game saves, that alone would not help. What makes DD2 secure is the fact, that everything is calculated server-side. CG already stated, that this would not be the case for DDA, because running all the necessary servers would be too expensive. But if DDA brings in the required success (=> money), we might see this in something like DD3. The question is not how can you avoid having a local save file, but detecting anomalies with generated loot or modified data. I do not really see the point of having hard caps in the game. This cap would have to be so high, that it would not limit the best legitimate stats. And if you can hack all your stats to those limits, the difficulty of the game will be trivial anyway. They have not shared any details, how the offline mode might differ. I would love to see a differentiation into "ranked" and "open" again, while ranked requires an always-on connection and important stuff is calculated server-side. But the benefits would be quite limited, as long as they keep their standpoint on not spending too much on the servers.
  12. Be careful with the math here. Bad or good RNG won't have a major impact here, because • the sample size of loot is huge (a lot of items are generated, you do not see a good amount of them because they never spawn due to the item floor limit) • small step increments (let's say you have an average of 4k tower stats, a nice upgrade might get you to 4.1k then) • 1/exponential scaling (you need more and more stats to increase a value by a certain percentage - the difference between 6k and 8k tower stats is not as huge as 2k vs 3k) • multiple item slots (sure, you might find a really nice item here and there, but you have multiple slots to fill, which means the nice item is averaged out) All these things considered, "bad RNG might take 3 times longer than another" is an extreme exaggeration. Furthermore the potential difference in player stats due to RNG and therefor power becomes smaller and smaller, the further you progress. You might see a few spikes in the beginning at low stats, but that's where the content is easy in any case (campaign) and most stat points are derived from leveling and not so much from items. Or in other words you could say, leveling mainly determines your progress in the beginning and flattens out potential differences in loot. And yes I agree, you will never satisfy everyone, when it comes to difficulty. But should a casual player be capable of beating the latest bonus map on massacre survival hc? And with casual player I mean one, who does not even bother to level up specific or lots of multiple builders/heroes. Someone who just sticks to his mage towers (yeah, there are such people, but you most likely won't encounter them here in the forum). The campaign is designed with these players in mind. Which is ok I guess, but please let us have fun in the endgame content. DDA is not fully server-sided and will be therefor very prone to cheats and item modification. We can just hope, that the devs implement some basic security and counter-measures. Sure you can always add difficulty, that is not the point. The main question is, when to do this. Preventive? (before the faster players use the situation and grind out the easy content faster than you can patch it) Reactive? (makes the overall balance more reasonable but you split the playerbase into those who already farmed the content and those, who are confronted with a steeper wall all of a sudden). I would definitely prefer the preventive approach method, because if it turns out, that the content was really a bit too hard, you can still nerf it and keep the integrity of the players loot and therefor the economy and most importantly the whole game. Exactly this. Once the easy content is out, it is too late and every "fix" will do more harm than it would actually help. And the content, from which you expected that it would keep the playerbase busy for a good while, until you have created the next content patch or DLC, is completely wasted at that point.
  13. Hello everyone, a game like Dungeon Defenders will stay and fall with it's endgame content, which is driven by challenging maps and the (long) grind for better and better loot to finally be able to handle these maps. This fundamental aspect has made DD1 so successful and motivating to play over a prolonged time - which was absolutely vital to build a core audience for this game. So we have these two important aspects, difficulty and loot, which somehow correlate with each other. DDE could have been an absolute great game, promising to be everything that DD1 was but with reasonable improvements and quality of life changes (for example being able to walk while repairing or building was just a nice little thing) and most important it was server-based, so without hacked gear or other cheats. It definitely had all the potential but one of the main reasons, why DDE failed so massively was the difficulty. The game overwhelmed you with good loot and way too high stats for a certain level, which made the further levels very easy up to a point, where the whole game became absolutely trivial. There was no need to grind anything, because you had - if I remember correctly - around 15-17k stats in the end, which made every content afkable. In addition to inflated stats, they made game breaking changes to certain defenses like the enrage aura. This aura could not only perma stun all basic mobs, but all mobs within the aura received twice or later on tripple the amount of damage. There are different ways of grinds and achieving difficulty. DD2 used a different approach by hiding the stuff you need to progress behind mainly time-based grind walls. So for instance you would need to collect a certain amount of resource X to unlock something and you could only get a certain amount of X either per day or per run, hence you just had to invest the time and play trivial content again and again. I am not really up-to-date when it comes to DD2, but the "shards" sound exactly like another such a system. So what exactly made DD1 so great in this regard? A simple design philosophy: In order to beat a certain map you need a certain amount of stats. But the loot, that would offer these stats would barely drop on the previous difficulty step. It might sound a bit paradox, but in order to beat a map you had to be able to farm that map. Maybe you remember the time, when the nightmare mode first came out. With all the best insane gear you were just running against a wall firstly. But eventually people found a way to break through, you would play the first few waves and hoped for that lucky mythical item drop that just made you a tiny bit better, so the next time you could get a little further and further. This was a really great time. And the endgame content does not really differ to much in this. You have to farm certain maps on high survival maps to get the gear for the next endgame-map. So now to DDA. I do not want to talk to much about difficulty here, because we cannot really judge it yet. Also we just have access to the very first maps - all of them being simple one-crystal-maps and there is no nightmare or even massacre mode yet, nor hardcore or mixed mode (will that be a thing again?). But I was positively surprised that there were some steep difficulty spikes when playing insane survival for the first time and you actually had to progress a bit to reach the point, where you can comfortably beat it. That's a good sign. While writing this, I am doing a insane survival lab afk run - but I guess that is fine, since I would consider myself to be way overleveled and -geared for the Beta content now. But I also see a couple of warning signs, which I would like to point out: The enrage aura is foundamentally broken, maybe even more than in DDE, since there is no immunity system (yet). For further details I would like to point you to this thread: https://chromatic.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360055378192-Enrage-Aura Also the monk buff seems to be really overpowered, already giving a x3 damage multiplier with the limited stats we can achieve in the beta. The fact that you can just place it and go and do somewhere else in between is already a huge buff and the mana costs allow you to maintain this buff indefinitely. But the point here is not to nitpick on certain things, that are still subject to be balanced out. A crucial aspect is, as I said, the loot system. As far as I can tell, the loot system is mainly based on DD1s system, which is definitely a good thing. Many people here are confused and mistake the shown iPWR value as a sign, that it was taken from DD2, but DD1 also had such an attribute - it was just hidden and visible for the player. I do not want to explain the exact item generation process here, but one aspect of the loot system has been "fixed" or let's say changed: Negative Stats This has a huge impact on the quality of items. When you found an item with one or more negative stats in DD1 this meant the following: The stat was randomly rolled and it actually rolled too high. It was too good for the items iPWR value and therefor it "overrolled" and became negative. This is no longer the case in DDA, the random range has been adjusted accordingly. I am pretty sure you can agree on having many occasions where you found an item in DD1 and thought "oh damn, if only this item would not have this negative stat there, it would have been absolutely awesome". And yeah... in DDA all these items will indeed be absolutely awesome. If you payed closer attention to the rolled stats on survival insane lab runs in the later waves, you will find that quite a lot of items have all 4 tower stats on them and most of them have at least 3. Items with all 4 tower stats were definitely much rarer in DD1. Alhanalem has raised my attention with this statement, whether this is just his personal impression or if he knows more than we do, I do not know. But with the reason stated above, I would confirm his statement. Without knowing, what nightmare and massacre will exactly look like and how "rare" certain "rarities" are going to be, it is out of range to make any real judgments here. So I can just say, that I have the feeling, that the loot system could be(come) a bit too generous in this regard and as pointed out above, this would have really negative effects on the endgame-gameplay experience and longevity. This example shows again, that finding the right balance is a very difficult and challenging multi-dimensional task (we have not even talked about the actual difficult, made up from the mobs damage, HP and also speed values). So I would like to finally come to my initial idea for this thread or let's call it a guideline of how I would advise the developers to approach balancing questions in general. Obviously, in an ideal world, everything should be well balanced. But when balancing a game you will often find yourself in a situation, where you are not really sure if it will be too hard or too easy and here I would advise the developers to always lean always lean more towards the "hard" direction. This might result in content becoming maybe a bit too hard. But that is nothing, that cannot be changed with further patches. The other way around does not really work, because if they release content, which is too easy, fast players will have already farmed the hell out of it. Any future adjustments would just make it harder for the other players to catch up and the ones, who already farmed the gear, which they shouldn't have at that point, can continue farming. In addition, I can see a lot of ways to gather a lot of valuable data from such a situation. Maybe some players can still manage to beat that content? You could analyze, how they did it. Maybe a certain defense is just overpowered? Maybe you identified some cheaters here? Or maybe they just figured out a really strong build and played actively and well-coordinated with 4 good dps chars? Maybe the 4 players difficulty scaling is much easier than solo or vice-verse? This has become a lengthy post - I hope that at least some of the aspect were interesting - and as I conclude it, so does my afk survival run. And the game has rewarded me with this nice giraffe: I will just leave that here as a reminder, that getting good loot should always be an exciting moment.
  14. You can still quadruple the XP that way. In my opinion this is not a huge deal, since people will boost themself or eachother up anyway and eventually you will reach the top level. The critical part is definitely the (endgame) loot and if DDA is really more generous with loot in general, I am already afraid that this will just be another DDE, which was way too easy and overwhelmed the player with better/op stuff, making the content trvivial and therefor ruined the whole endgame aspect/concept of the game. The game is designed with splitscreen in mind, it is an official feature. Not sure, why you are pointing out the completely different direction, which would be to prevent multiple accounts on the same network, when we have quite the opposite here. The point is, that one account should only get one times the loot and not more. Yes, there are technical ways. But it would be nicer to find a solution, which encourages players not to abuse this system (or have the feeling to miss out on a lot, if they are not doing so). Multiboxing, as others pointed out, is not exactly the same as splitscreen-farming. You need multiple accounts for this which require a full purchase of the game. That would be one of the way to encourage players with a gameplay solution. The problem is, that it is extremely hard to balance. How do you define difficulty? What exactly is "double" or "quadruple" difficulty? Simple multiplying dmg and HP by 4 won't do it. Increasing the number of mobs will affect time-efficiency. Also taking your example if I could chose between 4-way splitscreen resulting in 4 times the loot or your option which increases the solo difficulty by 8, the first option would obviously be preferable. Keep in mind, that you would also get the active builder bonus for all your (important) defenses. So the difficulty increase should actually be lower than 4, to make this an attractive alternative. Besides this, I like this idea in general, not just in relation to solo/group/splitscreen gameplay. Having an option to increase the loot of a map by a certain factor, but at the cost of a much higher difficulty sounds like a good way to encourage better builds and replayability of lower level maps (you could either grind on the "hardest" map or choose a higher difficulty mode on a lower map, which pushes the loot on the same level)! Sounds definitely interesting and could be a clever way to diversify map choices and gameplay. So basically you are saying, you like to cheat the system. Sorry, as much as I would appreciate others opinion, this is just a case of abusing the gamedesign and for me a form of cheating, which I despise in any online game. And it DOES have an effect on other peoples: Exactly this. So many people here do not seem to understand this. The game is always connected and you upload your data to the server. There might be an offline mode as well, but as far as I know, it won't be completely seperated and you will be able to transfer your offline progress to online at any point again. And getting 4 times the loot is an extreme advantage. So what you are doing will always have an impact on the economy, trading, leaderboards and ultimatively balancing decisions like loot drops and amounts. You are always affecting others in one way or another. Could you please explain, how you "lose out on loot"? You would get exactly as much, as one account should get. Not less and not more. If you are saying, this is my character and that is yours and we never ever share loot with each other/trade on the same account, first of all I find this not only hard to believe but you should have seperated accounts in that case to begin with. I would even say it is pretty unfair of you to say, that you should get more loot than someone, who also bought just one copy of this game. Shouldn't you be happy about the fact, that you are even allowed to share the account that way with all your family members? I know many other games, where this is forbidden. And still you expect to get even more, than one account would normally get. That is indeed unfair.
  15. This would be so amazing, the filter function is the most important thing in the inventory and it already annoys me, that I have to click on "Filter" then select what I need and then "Apply" and when I want to quickly look for something else, I have to do the whole process again. The filter option should be right there, integrated in the main inventory window with little, togglable buttons! Furthermore we really need a way to filter through stats by setting min and max values (for selling). I have made a little mock-up with my amazing paint skills... ;) I made the inventory and the stats summary a tiny bit smaller, so there is some space on the right side and this has the nice side-effect, that all attributes (especially the most important tower attributes) fit on the screen now. If the things would get a bit too small, it should go at the cost of the character picture - there is no need to have the monk there wasting so much space. The sorting and filter buttons on the right should get meaningful icons, obviously. One click on them simply highlights or dehighlights the button, representing an active or non-active filter. Sorting buttons are of course mutual exclusive. Stats have an input field for a min and a max value. This way, adding and adjusting filters would be much easier and faster! Oh and I forgot a "clear all active filters" button, that could go either on the top or bottom. I really hope they put more work and design in the UI and especially in the inventory management. The problem is, that they are developing this game for many different plattforms and they might decide to streamline the UI down to a point, where it works for the "weakest part of the chain". Especially a PC differs quite a lot in its input methods and offers the highest screen space area (relative to the size, resolution and viewing distance). Please make use of it!
×
×
  • Create New...