Jump to content

ShinUkyo

Valiant Defender
  • Content Count

    744
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

1 Follower

About ShinUkyo

  • Birthday February 15

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hey Diana, good to see you! I wasn't addressing you with my post; sorry if there was any confusion. I was remarking mostly to Al, since he mentioned there not being any more patches or development for the console versions. Which is true; not since many years ago. And it's always good to remind folks of that. It was an honest mistake since the original post didn't go into much detail about what it was asking. But the original poster didn't ask about updating/patching the game; they wanted to know about Xbox One's Backwards Compatibility program. And so I explained what they meant, how games get into the program, etc. Thankfully it requires zero work from developers or publishers to get games into Backwards Compatibility, so there are very few circumstances where a game shouldn't eventually end up there. As for online play: you can still play the 360 version online. Unless something changed recently that I'm unaware of. Since 99% of the games for Xbox 360 use Microsoft's infrastructure for online play; All titles released for 360/XBLA were given access to it by default. Which means a game's online matchmaking will generally never go down on a 360 game (unless it's on a dedicated server like various EA or 2K Sports titles.) In the case of the PS3 port of Dungeon Defenders: it used a service called "GameSpy" to matchmake the players online. When GameSpy shut down years ago, the online play for DunDef on PS3 went along with it. As well as loads of other PS3 games that used GameSpy. The reason for this is: PS3 did not have guaranteed access to matchmaking services for games. Particularly for smaller 3rd party titles. Thankfully this changed in the PS4 era.
  2. It looks like folks misunderstood OP's question. They want to know if DD1 will be added to the "Backwards Compatibility" program for Xbox One. This does not require any development from Chromatic/Trendy whatsoever in order to happen. Titles are added to the BC program via work from the BC Team over at Xbox. It requires some form of consent from the property owner, and not much else as I've seen. There is no reason this shouldn't happen, no downside or requirement of manpower by Chromatic, and I sincerely hope it does happen sooner than later. Most every amazing coop game from 360/XBLA has made it to become backwards compatible for Xbox One over the years since BC started, and DD1 is one of the few glaring exceptions. My random/related history tidbit: The 360/XBLA version of the game was published in the olden days by Reverb, as DD1 launched when self-publishing wasn't possible for small devs on consoles. But I seem to recall publishing rights going back to Trendy on that version. And even if not, Reverb still exists and could okay this move as well. So even on the technicality side there shouldn't be anything blocking this.
  3. Amen to this; very well said. People should absolutely be able to target certain rewards. Sure, it means they farm those challenges ad nauseum. But as you said, having random drops be the best quality gear would just lead to a similar problem: people farming the easiest/fastest map with high enough loot quality multiplier. In either case: people are not playing a variety of content. They're running the same few maps. The goal should be to make a variety of content which drops meaningful loot at a similar rate and time investment regardless of stage played. And have the variance from stage to stage, on the same difficulty, be in WHICH items can drop, not in the quality of said drops. Something DD2 does in its current form, and has a for a bit, is allow you to "Tinker" stuff. So that all those amazing weapon models can be made into legendary gear and be 100% viable in endgame. Instead of having just a few usable endgame weapons (something it struggled with previously, DD1 always struggled with and still does to some degree, etc.) And not having all the gorgeous weapon art assets go to waste when people only use a couple of endgame-viable weapons. So in DDA, in the absence of Tinkering, all main weapon types should at least be able to drop/reward at full endgame stat ranges. You'll see a variety in builds as well as people farming different stages depending which gear they want.
  4. The good news is: this is a different company from the Trendy of five years ago. Decisions aren't being forced by corporate shareholders, by publishers, or by certain members of past management that shall remain unnamed. They mean it when they say the company is actually "indie" again, and that fills me with lots of hope. Plus they have five more years of learning what works and what doesn't. Even the past few years of DD2 development has shown the bright direction the team was heading in. They managed to be very player-centric in recent years despite the higher-ups telling them they still need to push monetization above all... Now without the constraints on, they can finish that goal they started with late-era DD2. With a fresh new engine and database, etc, etc. I'm impressed and amazed they managed to turn around both DD1 and DD2 so well considering the Frankenstein of code and systems they both use. It's no exaggeration when Mark and the devs say how much faster they can push out content with UE4 and a fresh start. Things that took months to implement will often now just take weeks.
  5. It did end up with a couple really good changes (as noted above,) stuff that could do well to come back. But it was just a big mess of a project overall. Part of that being how the game was initially an appeasement project for Stieglitz (a lot of drama and backstory I won't go into here.) That and a test run for Playverse servers; a back-end that never really needed to exist; long story there as well. Rather than DDE being a project that truly needed to be made. In the end, as people said all along, they should have just updated DD1. And they eventually did again, thanks to the tireless efforts of the CDT on top of it. That being said: I need to go back to DDE and finish up the achievements. While the game and servers are still here. Having a DD game be incomplete-able for me would kill me. Particularly with the mention of Playverse eventually going bye-bye, I need to stop waiting to do this. So if you want to play it sometime let me know.
  6. Absolutely yes. The crafting system in DDE was convoluted as hell. By the final iteration it became far less so, but you should have seen it in the testing phase. It was a handful of features slapped into the game because those features were trendy in gaming at the time. Where it seemed every game had to have some kind of crafting system shoehorned in, some kind of rogue-like elements, etc. When in fact DD1 needed none of those. DD was so great because it was its own game and style. I do love how they worked out tinkering in DD2, and agree that could do well if they could find a way to implement something similar to it here. As a safeguard for bad RNG, one where you still need to play a lot to utilize tinkering. So it's not an easy mode, just a way to make stuff fair.
  7. Absolutely. Like you, I adore both games. Played the hell out of both. Still enjoy both for what they did right and understand what they did wrong. And so when people come on saying "DD1 was great and DD2 is trash," it's just not objectively true. Especially since both games have undergone such radical changes in their years of development. Many people who make that statement did not play the current version of both games. It's not a balanced statement, and there's no reason for such a strong and resilient community to bash on each other for what they enjoy. We're all Defenders. Elandrian said they are looking towards DD3, which will unquestionably bring the best parts of both prior titles into the mix. With the company being indie again, along with a classic sales model, it's going to be great. As for DDA, it looks to be more of a remake of the first game. So it will mostly be like DD1, mind you they have promised some of those important yet smaller QoL changes I mentioned. Stuff that won't change the core loop or dynamic of DD1, but will make it feel fresh and something you want to replay. So I do have high hopes!
  8. Very well stated. And don't get me wrong: DD1 is one of my couple most-played games of all time. Out of three or four decades of gaming. I've played it vastly more than I've played DD2 (even despite having been around for every pre-release and testing version of DD2.) However with that said: the new generation team at Trendy has finally brought DD2 to a wonderful place. With so many quality of life fixes that make the game an utter joy to play. At least SOME of those sorts of changes need to make it into DDA. Auto-collection of loot. Loot with working stat ranges, lack of abundant trash loot (and loot despawns caused by this, etc.) Stages with SENSIBLE play times to complete; both regular and survival. Along with the promised improvements like inventory management - stuff that neither DD1 nor DD2 did very well. I love both games with my heart and soul. But in their CURRENT states, if given the choice, I'd opt to play DD2. What does the current build of DD2 offer? Why is it so appealing to folks that, like you and I, are sad to see its new content support ending? A big one, mind you easy to describe: stages are short, sweet, and to the point. They are not "fluffed out" like most of DD1's endgame maps were and still are today. I just can't do one hour plus stages that are more a battle of attrition than one of ramping, genuine difficulty. Not anymore, especially not after DD2 fixed that issue so well. Not to mention being able to switch heroes and use your inventory from anywhere on the fly. Not needing to collect mana from chests, etc. The absolute flow of things being so crisp... And then as for loot in current DD2? You can upgrade any gear you like, legitimately any weapon model included, to be fully viable endgame gear. You can re-roll stuff to get an "almost perfect" piece to actually be "perfect." The general stats of gear are baseline and simple, meaning all dropped Legendary gear is viable. But there's also random perks (MODS) introduced back in. Which again: you're not stuck with bad ones, nor worried about losing good ones, due to tinkering and re-rolls. You spend enough time playing the game: you can tailor your gear to be just as you want it. It's not a wholly-RNG nightmare like earlier iterations of both DD2 and DD1. With the Shard Vendor incoming, that takes care of the biggest issue I had remaining. The only component of endgame play that was still wholly reliant on RNG (and not how much time you invested) was with Shard acquisition. So with current DD2 you have them getting closer to THE core goal, one they tried so many years to achieve. Where your time spent playing the game meant you eventually got what you want. Return on investment, where your time is more valuable than money. Where there are some RNG elements to keep it addictive, of course, yet there are ways where playing long enough can now mitigate or fix your bad RNG luck. Through tinkering, re-rolls, etc. I will miss this greatly in DDA, and since it's a re-imagining of the first game: I don't expect that level of loot changes to happen. I will surely play a lot of DDA, but at the same time I'll surely miss DD2. Through all the ups and downs over many years, and yes some serious downs, DD2 finally felt close to "right." My love and support for Trendy/Chromatic is strong and unwavering, no question. But I'm a mix of both elated and sad.
  9. This is wonderful news! So folks are getting the intended amounts? This is both great news for me and bad news for my wallet haha. But again, especially having it timed with the Summer Sale prices like this, I can't resist. I'll be in gems for a very long while and happily support Trendy in further releases. I agree, also, that it would be nice to see the packs discounted on consoles. Though the reason for this, among other things, is that discounting DLC is not nearly as easy on there. Whereas with Steam it's easier overall (and even moreso during seasonal sales) to maintain control over your prices.
  10. I noticed these packs had gone up as well, and I hope to nab them all before the Summer Sale ends. However the reviews for the Supporter Pack state the same as OP does above. How, instead of the 13,000 gems the pack is supposed to reward: they only received 3,000 gems. Has the issue been remedied? I want to buy it (and support Trendy as always,) but not yet if it's still bugged haha.
  11. He speaks the truth! Josh: you are loved and missed. Though as you pointed out above: the game and community are in good hands. Elandrian being one of those hands (err, "two of those hands?" Technically. I dunno. I'm tired.) Not to mention that Lawlta is doing amazingly on the community outreach side. He had some big shoes to fill; some very big shoes. But he has just gotten better and more engaged every day since he joined the team. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go "like" all his posts so that his inbox gets spammed with hearts. Need to show love for the community managers that work so hard on the front lines during a big launch day. You know this well. <3
  12. Amen to that. Getting gold is nice, especially since it's a currency you can't mass purchase with gems. But like you said: in the current game flow, the gold spent on upgrades is wiped if you're pursuing Ancient Power. So to get something potentially meaningless and temporary for real money seems absurd. As does getting consumable pet re-rolls. At least utilizing something like the Overwatch setup: dupes get you a specific currency that you can purchase those loot-box specific skins with. Not just right away; it takes a lot of dupes to accumulate funds to get the good skins. But it means that even when you don't get something you want from the boxes, you're making very tiny progress to ensuring you eventually do. It gives you an incentive to keep buying, so even on the publisher side it works out. The current setup has no incentive like that. Since that would of course take plenty of time and coding, my other suggested method comes off as easier to utilize. Where after "X" amount of months of a skin being loot-box specific, it could then be made purchasable for gems as well. Then they can rotate new skins into being loot-box only. Again this would depend on how often they can roll out new skins, but as noted above: it could mean enticement to buy both initially and later on (depending on how soon people need to have the skins.)
  13. I figured I should raise some critical points and constructive ideas with regards to Defender Packs. Considering the climate in gaming since the EA Battlefront fiasco, I'm surprised we don't see more posts about this. Thankfully the Defender Packs in DD2, while they are loot boxes, don't affect gameplay progression or power (in a way that Battlefront or Shadow of War did, for example.) However, needless to say, looking good is (and always has been) part of the gameplay experience. Also I'm well aware that Shard Packs are close to an actual "pay to win" mechanic and have existed for a while now. That's for another discussion, but today I speak of Defender Packs... As players, we all prefer the costumes you can buy directly. Even if they cost US $20 or US $50 in those rare cases. We can help support the game, while knowing exactly what we are getting. It's a direct and fair transaction. I have bought many skins for DD2, gladly so, to support a game I play a lot. From a player perspective, that method is 100% infallibly better. The only way loot boxes can be remotely good for the player is the old lock-box setup. Where you can't ever get duplicates, so you know that spending "X" amount of money can guarantee all drops. However from the publisher side, in the long-term, guaranteed acquisitions like those aren't seen as desirable anymore. Especially when the playerbase is relatively small like ours is. Most of the players that would have bought skins directly already have done so. When new skins come out, they would buy those right away then be done spending until the next release. Without a steady stream of new players, this monetization method plateaus fairly quickly... With loot boxes, there is no upper limit to what a dedicated buyer will spend. Since you can legitimately spend hundreds or thousands dollars on loot boxes and not get the skin you wanted. They are banking on the dedicated enough players (the ones that would spend $50 on a single skin) will keep buying loot boxes until they get the Plexus skins they want, etc. On the financial side, this was deemed their better play for profit... I won't hold it against them completely, since financial decisions like this don't just fall on Trendy as a developer of games. The company goes higher than just the dev team side, plus they have other parties which spent money on Trendy and own a stake. Those parties, also, expect them to grow financially in return for that investment. It's how business works. There are also bills to pay and servers to maintain. In a F2P game setting, you need constant revenue streams to keep the lights on. That being said, I would love to see changes made to the system. Obviously removing consumable pet items would make sense to start. Loot boxes need padding, but that level of padding is superfluous. You can get those from normal gameplay, and you should be able to (since pet abilities/stats in general, for years, have had no real use in the game. Aside from the few with true burst effects like Dragolich.) That takes padding to a nearly insulting level, and you can tell from plenty of posts in the past saying so. Speaking of dupes, while it's nice to get in-game gold, that is again something we already get (and should expect) from normal gameplay. I'd rather see dupes award a specific new currency type that, when enough is saved, can purchase the loot-box specific skins directly instead. Overwatch uses this system to great success. Mind you their old loot boxes had way too many dupes (and way too little currency in exchange.) With enough community outcry, they eventually made the odds better. Today, by comparison, the dupes are fairly rare and the currency for dupes is fairly high. Good compromise. This or, if the dev cycle allows it, rotate skins from the loot boxes into being direct purchasable as well after "X" amount of time from their release. It means the obsessive folks can pay to try and get them sooner while they are exclusive to loot box rolls. While the players like myself can buy them directly later in the year when it can be a direct transaction with Trendy. Both cases allow dedicated players to support the company, but it allows them to do it based on their terms and financial ability to do so. Let those with the higher expendable funds do the loot boxes sooner, and let others direct-purchase later. It's a big and complex topic. There's loads more I could say. And sadly, again because of how business works, there isn't much Trendy can say directly. But if there's a dialogue it's a good thing, as they always read and take to heart what we're saying as a community. Even if they can't be direct about it. I'd love to hear other people's thoughts, and of course that they are at least being heard. Peace and love as always to my fellow Defenders.
  14. There's a much longer post to be made about this, and so I made it into its own thread (as I've been wanting to for a while.) For starters, yes, I agree wholeheartedly. This needs to be addressed, and sadly we see very few posts about it.
  15. Agree with everything in your post! As much as we all critique, it's because we love the game. And the good has always far outweighed the bad. Both in the base game and the changes made. I noticed in your post, when talking about changes from DD1 to DD2, you spoke from a console perspective. In that case the jump must be huge, as the console ports were mostly stuck on Vanilla DD1 (aside from the four Lost Shards maps, not that Sky City actually ran properly.) Whereas on the Steam version of DD1, it was a whole 'nother world. Such a long and varied evolution, and in fact it continues to evolve today thanks to the CDT. But in any case, when you see people griping about what they miss from DD1, it's generally PC players. Anyway, in DD2, thankfully the console ports are receiving parity with the Steam one. Nobody misses out on content. Thanks to the ability to freely and properly update games on the current console generation (PS4/XB1.) This was not the case with the last gen consoles, and many devs learned this the hard way (Trendy included.) I was so glad when the console makers started the new generation right with regards to developer freedom.
×
×
  • Create New...