Jump to content

Windex

Defender-In-Training
  • Content Count

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

35 Excellent

1 Follower

About Windex

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I might have been talking about the wrong thing. I was talking about people blacklisting you so you can never join their game again and I didn't like that whole idea. As long as host can kick, you can just kick someone whenever they're toxic, even if it's the 10th time they are. I'm for the idea of being able to blacklist someone so you don't see their game when they're hosting.
  2. New suggestion about the whole host kick/players voting. Have either kicking disabled or a voting system by default but add an option for the host to turn on host kick, if they want to, when creating their game. Then add a simple visual tell like a hammer or a boot next to the host's name in the games lobby if their game has host kick enabled. I feel like this would accommodate everyone's preferences and be extremely easy to implement into the game.
  3. @Exglint The matter of them not having enough manpower was actually mentioned multiple times in this third page alone. I have read the entire thread and didn't see anyone expecting them to put 5 people on this and 100k$. We're are indeed giving ideas for them to just see. I didn't see 1 post where someone expected them to apply their idea. So are we supposed to be giving only ideas that would work assuming the smallest budget and dedicated manpower? Nobody having any control whatsoever in public games makes no sense to me. Sure some people play multiplayer to make actual friends. More often than not I play to have fun with other people during that game, not to know each other after. Anyway, for me it's either give the host full control or no one at all. At least when I decide to host public matches I won't be trolled/kicked by other players and if it's just annoying to host because you can't kick or do anything about it, I'll just play private matches by myself. That's gonna be the case for more than just me too. So why not try to prevent that altogether in the first place. I have a hard time believing that. Maybe it's been the case because people need a certain threshold to play specific content in DD2. Forget abusers, I don't want someone under-geared joining my survival and wasting a third of the DUs because they don't know better. Having to remake your game in such situations is really silly to me. Also like I said in a prior post, don't expect everyone to be able to easily communicate with each other like you can on PC. At the end of the day I think that it all goes down to being kicked at the end of the map so the host gets more loot by adding split-screen characters. Yes removing any way to kick prevents that but it doesn't do anything about it being much more efficient. I didn't even know that was actually a thing back when I played DD1 but now that I'm aware of it and how good that is, if nothing is done about it, I'll most likely be doing it myself too with 4 controllers on PS4. Minus the kicking people of course. Edit : Realistically we'll either get : No kick feature/Host only or vote based kick/Some kind of tweaked kick system. Still, I enjoy giving new ideas and hearing about peoples ideas and opinions while waiting for the game to come out.
  4. That does make sense caus as I was trying to say, you can't guarantee a lot of people will bother giving good rep unlike the ones who had a bad experience giving bad rep. Maybe have the good rep selected by default if nothing is done by the player. That doesn't really seem better to me. Let's say it turns out that everyone plays games with 4 players. Each person that blacklisted you prevents you from playing with 3 other players. I really don't mind for people who actually deserve it. But I've had plenty of times in different games where I got banned for absolutely no reason.
  5. @dizzydiana I hadn't thought of multiple different accounts when playing split-screen rather than multiple characters of the same account. But I don't think it wouldn't be too hard for them to just have the game detect that there's split-screen and then restrict loot for those players only. But yeah I was just curious to hear opinions about my suggestion. I don't actually remember reading about it from someone else in this thread. Also, I don't think it would be fair as is. It's just not fair to penalize legit split-screen players just to prevent the very few ones who are gonna exploit it. That's mainly why I was wondering if there would be a way to not penalize the legit players in some other way, but probably not.
  6. Personally I didn't see how having the third player joining in adding a second and fourth total character unfair. But after thinking about it I'm assuming you have the extra loot in mind? At the end of the day it seems like a lot of concerns go back to that whole "The more players you have, the more loot you get.) The last time I saw it being discussed, no one had really found a way to fix that problem. Relative to the split-screen players in multiplayer, here's an idea I just came up with : If you play in public matches. Your loot is shared across all your split-screen characters. So if instanced loot was to be in the game, you wouldn't actually benefit from having more characters logged in. Sure it's penalizing for the split screen players but only in multiplayer public matches. On the other end, it adds a layer of cooperation among the ACTUAL split-screen players. You would have to communicate and decide who gets what etc. It would be the same way for end of map rewards. 1 in total for all the split-screen players. This is only a suggestion about preventing multiplayer kick abuse. But I'm actually curious what people think about having that apply at any time for split-screen players. Yes it's penalizing for the legit split-screen players but maybe there could be ways to offset that without still having split-screen be the most rewarding. I meant to type this with my other post but messed up. There's no way to remove this post right?
  7. @dizzydiana From "Upon reading through your suggestions, I feel they have some merit and brought up some valid points." I wasn't really sure but after reading everything you said I had the sentiment that you agreed with most of what I said :).
  8. I wanted to touch on that but forgot. I feel like people would just exploit that to afk or run around and not care until the map is done while being protected from getting kicked. I'd much rather prevent people benefiting from kicking people in the first place. You would very very rarely get kicked for no reason before the end if that were the case and if there was an in-game blacklist you could just add that person there. That person would never do that to you again. I'm pretty sure there would be much less people kicking in the final wave(s) than people abusing the kick protection. edit: I don't actually dislike the idea, there could definitely be a way to prevent abuse by having some sort of kick protection at X point under X rule(s).
  9. I'm kind of in a dilemma, should I post gameplay stuff now while the game is still "early" in development to have more chance of stuff being added into the game or wait around the PC closed beta to have more chance of the devs hearing about it.. I posted ideas very early on mostly because I was very hyped about the game. I'm not too hot about waiting for the PC beta to post a suggestion about controller players.. At the same time, DD2 has been out for years on consoles and some of the things I'm gonna talk about are still present. I'm not trying to rant and complain, I'm just really hoping that DD:A can be free of those avoidable game development issues. You could easily read what I'm gonna say below and think "Just buy a good pc", unfortunately my wrists are screwed and I can't play keyboard and mouse anymore. I decided to switch to consoles about 5 years ago since you don't have to worry about whether a game is playable with a controller and if so how well. Unfortunately, a lot of lower budget games have performance issues on consoles. 1- LAG. I hate playing a game and heavily feeling the frames go down. I decided to give DD2 another shot a couple weeks ago to see if things had changed. Unfortunately they had not. The public town was a huge laggy mess and despite immediately going to my private tavern, I would get sent back there every time I left a map. Just running around in The gates of Dragonfall (the smallest map right?) with no defenses placed or units spawned, felt horrible. I saw you're building the game for Switch and up-scaling from there but please keep performances on consoles in mind when creating any aspect of the game. Not just the campaign. I would hate for the end-game maps on the hardest difficulty to be a lagfest. Possibly have consoles specific tweaks to prevent/reduce lag. I wouldn't mind to have game options to turn off some animations or other things like that if I wanted to reduce lag. 2- TEXT SIZE. I often play console games and wonder "Have they ever played/tested their game on a tv?" When I went back to DD2 there were now mods features that were not present the last time I played. It was extremely hard to read the mods texts without standing up from my chair and leaning toward my TV. And I play from a very reasonable distance from my TV. Any closer would be too close. I'm assuming this won't happen with DD:A since it's going to have split-screen. Having any relatively small texts on a 4-ways split TV would be... 3- CONTROLLER QoL. If what I'm gonna say is actually present in DD2, I apologize I missed it. I'm a perfectionist person and back when I played DD1 on PC, I liked everything to be placed exactly how I wanted. Please add the ability to slow down your angle sensitivity when building. Just add a building mode only hotkey, like Left trigger or something like that, that slows down your building angle sensitivity so that you can more easily build your defense in the exact angle you want. That's all I had to say about that. Keep up your awesome work on the game, it's been nice to hear your progress through your updates.
  10. If you want to skip the part where I disagree on some elements that were brought up in this thread and say why, skip the first three paragraphs. I'll start by saying that I really don't think a report system is a good idea. Even if CG had enough manpower and money to actually monitor the reports, DD isn't like a MOBA where you can easily look at different logs like chat/feeding/etc. Sure it could all be automated but any reporting system can be abused/unfair. You could get reported just because someone is mad that you used the last DUs to build the wrong things. Not everyone is gonna bother typing to you to tell you, especially on consoles. A reputation system seems really unreliable. When would you rep someone, at the end of the game? After a while, most people will likely not bother giving rep. Then do you get good rep by default? That would mean almost everyone would accumulate good rep unless they were toxic 100% of the time. Let's say a troll starts playing the game and keeps doing bad stuff and ends up with a garbage reputation but then starts really loving the game. Is that person doomed from playing with anyone who picked "good reputation only". Also in DD1, I remember being kicked a lot for no reason as soon as I joined a game. Would you get bad reputation every time that happens? Having to play with the toxic player until the end to be able to give them bad reputation doesn't sound like a good idea either. I really don't like the idea of a banlist. Imagine you're playing a public survival game and something comes up IRL, you go away from your computer/console but stay in the in-game not suspecting it would take so long. You come back to see that you were kicked and the host banned you. From now on, every time you randomly try to join that person's game you are greeted with a "You are Banned" message. I have played games in the past where I would get kicked/banned from a player's game for no reason and I would get really annoyed when I couldn't join again. (Most of the time unsuspectingly) I do like the idea of a blacklist though and will talk about it below. I don't think those are needed as long as we have a good voting/kicking system. Here are my actual suggestions : Host-only voting power. Only the host should be able to decides what happens in his game. But allow players to start suggestion votes. By example : You are in a game with 4 people in which you're not the host. You would like to play The Deeper Well map next on one difficulty level higher. Toward the end of the current map you start a suggestion vote for that. This would directly show the host what you would like to play next and how the others feel about it. This same feature could also work for suggesting kicks and other things. It would be on the host to decide whether or not to act on the suggestion. Have a similar feature for the host. Examples as the host : You feel like a player is detrimental to the team but aren't sure if that player should be kicked or not. You would be able to start an actual vote where everyone can decide on the action. Votes initiated by the host would automatically come in effect if unanimity is reached. You just finished a map and don't mind playing a number of different maps. You'd be able to start a vote of up to 3? maps with the option to be able to pick a different difficulty for each one. It's pretty simple from there, the map with the most votes is automatically started after the short vote ends. In case of a tie (if the host gets to vote) the map which he voted for wins. If the host doesn't get a vote, give him the final decision in case of a tie. To prevent annoyance and extra loading screens, there should be a prompt for players whose votes lost with the choices to leave the game or go to the next map. Decision wise nothing would happen that the host did not want. A blacklist feature when you get kicked. Upon getting kicked, have the option to add the host to your blacklist. Have the blacklist have different tiers. By example : Green/Yellow/Red. If you got kicked and you think it was absolutely unfair, you would add the host to your blacklist as Red. If you got kicked but feel like it was half-deserved, you could decide to blacklist him but only as Green. When trying to join a game hosted by someone on your blacklist, you would receive a message warning you that the host is on your blacklist along with their corresponding color/tier. You could decide to still join and give them another shot if they were only green/yellow. While possibly increasing their toxicity level or removing them from your list depending on the outcome of the game. Personally I think a blacklist should only be added later on if the game actually ends up having toxic behaviors. It should be built to avoid them in the first place. Simply prevent players benefiting from kicking others. Benefiting from having multiple characters present is likely to return. Either from instanced loot for each respective player, if it's added, or end of map rewards. Possible ways to prevent that from having people kick players on the last wave(s): 1- When playing in an online public game, prevent players from being able to add splint-screen players when there are only X waves left. 2- Same as number 1 but only prevent the host from being able to. 3- Require the host to enable/disable split-screen play when creating their game and have that visible when looking for games so players can avoid split-screen enabled game if they're afraid of getting kicked toward the end. Non-host player gameplay grief should be pretty unimpactful since they said in their last update that DD:A would allow you to replay from a previous wave rather than start over on defeat. I also suspect the unannounced related feature to be save-able defense placements presets. An unanimity only voting system would just add ways for toxic players to grief. Someone went on about ways for the host to not be kick-able by having their votes count for 2 etc. That's just over-complicating things for no reason. I'm against an afk auto-kick system. Just let the host act on what they think shouldn't be allowed in THEIR game. Wouldn't be nice to have the friend you're carrying get kicked just because they're idle. There could be an option the host could enable if they want to auto-kick players afk for [Insert a slider] X minutes. You would be able to distinguish games with auto-kick ON from the game lobbies. If a blacklist similar to my prior suggestion was added, you wouldn't be able to add the host if you were kicked that way.
  11. After reading this entire thread to try to understand where came from, I'm really hoping they add an actual DDA section ASAP. Having only backed for digital rewards, I didn't even know until now about the extra shipping costs for physical rewards. There's useful feedback and useless "feedback". Some things are just plain, not needed, complaining. (Don't get me wrong, if I'd had to pay an absurd amount of shipping I would have been all over the forums complaining about it. Although I wouldn't be calling it feedback and saying I'm afraid the game might be DOA when only like 2% of the backers had physical rewards with shipping costs. Also not just the backers are gonna play the game and CG has already made money from them.) Let's say developers are supposed to release a content update for a game and the update gets pushed back by 4 months for X reasons and when it finally comes out, it comes out with the exact content it was supposed to have 4 months ago. It's just logical that people are gonna be unhappy about it. Complaining about it on the forums is not gonna bring anything positive, it's just gonna make people argue and the devs feel more bad about having delayed it for X reasons. I totally agree that nonconstructive feedback is good, but to me, it can also be dangerous. If you're playing a game and really enjoying it, are you gonna go to the forums and say : "Hey, I really like every aspects of your game!" While on the other hand, if there's one thing you personally really dislike, you're much more likely to take the time to go complain about it. I feel it's pretty tricky to know how the majority really feel about something in a game unless a lot of people are complaining about it. I'm glad DDA will have a lot of beta testers from the KS so they'll receive plenty of "good and bad" feedback in the development phase. I was part of the defense council back before DD2 and was very active until the first 3 or so alpha play tests. My computer couldn't really run the game at all so I pretty much stopped caring about it. DD2 was always really underwhelming when I played it on PS4 and the endgame was extremely laggy the last time I played it. I never wanted to go back since. I also liked DD1's graphics and art style a lot more. I'm hoping DDA can be shaped into a great game before it comes out. Unfortunately I won't be able to play test the game since my pc can't run it and I'll be playing solely on PS4.
  12. I don't really like that example. I played dota and sure there are always metas where heroes are more used than others at higher skill levels. But you could still play any heroes you wanted and found fun to play. Like you said : There was just no way to use these as other things were just more efficient or they were plain useless on the hardest maps.
  13. I read everything carefully but it's not really clear. When does "does not turn the forums into a platform for the aforementioned." becomes too much of that. So it's fine as long as you don't "intentionally" disagree and try to turn the forums into an argument? That's pretty much down to each person's interpretation of what's too much disagreeing. 
  14. To be honest, like I quoted several time, they said "Dungeon Defenders: Awakened is a brand-new, cooperative, tower defense action RPG that recaptures the soul of the original Dungeon Defenders." Have you never seen a sequel that has a lot of the same mechanics and gameplay elements but improved on? While having new enemies, environments, etc and a new / following story. Most of the core fans played one of the two games, or both, because they loved the game and at least a couple of the features that it had. I don't think it's correct to think/expect that people shouldn't be proposing things to return / improve upon. I think it'd be a mistake to remove certain aspects of the game because "It's a new game". People should be encouraged to say what they liked about the game so that it could come back. They should definitely suggest ideas to improve those if they were to come back. At least until they were told by CG that that feature is not coming back. Maybe we'll get a game that's completely different from the previous games, but to me that wouldn't be the DD that I played and loved. Sure it could end up a better game, but I don't see how it would be to me, if they changed every elements.
  15. "Users - Harassing or bullying other users will not be tolerated. This is a place for people to share their experience in-game, and come together as a community. Disagreeing or not liking a particular user does not turn the forums into a platform for the aforementioned." I just wanted to know more about this. Are we not allowed to disagree with someone anymore? Should you not say you disagree with something if you only say that? Are you allowed to say you disagree with an idea or thought and give your reasoning behind it or give a different idea you think would be better?
×
×
  • Create New...