Jump to content

Windex

Defender-In-Training
  • Content Count

    131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

60 Excellent

1 Follower

About Windex

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I didn't even know that was possible until last week when I read about it when checking some guides. Stacking towers is really silly but I would actually like to be able to somewhat stack minions in DDA if the summoner and EV were to eventually return. One of the most annoying thing I've experienced playing DD1 is making sure everything is affected by your buff beam. I've been playing DD1 again and it's painfully hard to have a spider and mage side by side both be affected by a buff beam. I used stacking for the first time yesterday just to have them both on top of each other instead of going through the trouble of having them both be affected normally. You can move them closer to each other manually after placing them but that's really not something I would like to try and do on ps4.
  2. It pretty much comes down to this idea I gave in that thread. Like Caimen0 said, if there was some kind of multi-builder mode/option, it should be on specifically tailored for maps. I really don't think making one amount of builders more rewarding than another is a good thing. I would also not like solo-building to be penalized in DUs. I think the best way to engage multiple people in building is to find a way that's fun and not frustrating game-play wise. Even if a map was supposed to be "easier" because everyone had their own share of a larger DU pool, there's no guarantee that everyone would be strong enough to build properly. I'm thinking mostly of the highest difficulty as it requires at lot more precision and power than everything else and I don't see a world where I would want to split building with someone else in survival. They talked about an option to retry a failed wave in DDA but I'm hoping that's not possible in Survival since I feel like it kinda defeats the purpose of the mode. And even if it is possible in survival, redoing an entire map build again with randoms upon failure, seems really annoying. I would much rather have maps that encourage having multiple people building and that are possibly less penalizing rather than game elements that kind of force you to not solo build. I really like the idea of a map(s) where there would be factors of 2 (2-4-6-etc) crystals to defend. The map could be built entirely solo but there would be options for the Host to activate 2 or 4 builders modes when hosting the map. Activating one of these options would split the map and DUs accordingly. Players would only have to worry about building and defending their own part of the map. I was thinking that a player losing their crystal(s) would only cause that player to lose. They would be forced back onto the remaining parts left and could only DPS. There should be some mechanics to prevent players from just losing and all falling back to the last player to DPS. Things like less rewards for every section destroyed or much harder waves scaling with the amount of players who lost their crystals. Also there should be an additional wave if a section of the map is destroyed on the last wave to not make the map too easy by just requiring one player to be able to defend their section in the last wave. Some maps in DD2 have additional objectives to defend that open new enemies spawns if destroyed. There could absolutely be a similar system in 2/4 builders modes with visual events that would cause the remaining sections to be much harder to defend every time a section is destroyed. Personally, I really don't want any kind of system that penalizes you for solo building but I would love for new features or maps that have you want to build with other people. Like some kind of survival last man standing like I suggested in the thread I linked earlier or a multi-builder mode where I'm not penalized for weaker builders failing but instead challenged by it. I don't see how having every builder just split what to build across the whole map can be fun. Having one person placing the walls in a predetermined spot and then the next one placing the auras and so on isn't actually more fun. Sure on an easier difficulty every one can place pretty much what ever they want where they want but on the hardest difficulty you unfortunately need the best combinations.
  3. Did you see anyone talktrash nintendo? This whole thing is a choice CG did. If sony had the game delayed on playstation 4 for what ever reason, I would be mad at sony and not CG. I personally don't have any special love regarding Sony. I switched to console gaming about 5 years ago because I couldn't play keyboard and mouse anymore because of wrists issues. I didn't really switch by choice. I didn't want to play with a controller on PC and never know if a game really supports controllers and if it does is it even well supported. I also wanted to have a fair playing field in player vs player games and not be against keyboard and mouse players. I don't even get why some of you guys keep saying that like it is a good thing, that should count for anything. How is getting a project started on fake promise, getting outside money and screwing over some of your backers and refunding some of them any good behavior? The amount of money they'll actually have to refund to a most likely very small amount of people must be nothing to what they gained / will gain. edit : If something outrageous happened in two months from now and 90% of the entirety of the backers asked for refunds, do you really think they would refund everyone? It's funny to me how at the start they were saying that they were back to being an indie studio with no more obligations and no one forcing their hands. Then they raise a lot of money from fans and proceed to sign a contract with Nintendo which forces them to do things and they can't even actually talk to us about any of the details because of said contract. @LemonyNebula Cross-saves as you mentioned, is the only thing that really frustrates me with this whole console timed exclusive situation. It's the only thing that will really affect XB and PS players who get to play later. If they really care as much about XB and PS players, they should disable cross-saves imports on Xbox1 and PS4 for something like the first two weeks. Personally, hoping they will do something about it is the main thing that has prevented me from seriously considering getting a refund. And to be honest, to me it kinda goes to show that they actually don't really care about their backers. There are a few things they could do to try and at least make the XB and PS only players feel better about the situation. Instead they just said "we're sorry" and are giving refunds.
  4. They don't. You can use all your player 1 characters in split-screen. So all map rewards go directly into your player 1 inventory. The fact that you can literally drop items from your inventory directly on the ground for anyone to pick up for free makes this impossible. Also I think a bunch of players wouldn't like not being able to trade with one another. If they were to not let you trade or drop items on the ground, they would have to somehow prevent split-screen players from sharing the same inventory. I feel like the most obvious solution is to just have the split-screen players share the same drops while everyone else is instanced. The problem is that split-screen is not only abused to get map rewards but to cause more enemies to spawn, thus increasing the amount of items dropped on the ground. But I think being able to double/triple/quadruple your map rewards is a much bigger issue so maybe just find a way to only restrict that aspect. The main problem with forcing people to engage in a minimum of actions is that in survival once you've built everything you needed, you can let everything play out. You could just split all the builds across your fake split-screen players. And what about multiplayer game where the host uses 2 characters by fake split-screening an extra one and does all the building and the other public players barely even get to attack stuff. I had considered some way to auto-kick split-screen players that don't engage in any action for a certain time but there's still the fact that in DD1, you can simply have your fake split-screen characters join right before the wave giving special rewards and get all of them. I think an option we came up regarding hosts kicking players at the end to add their fake split-screen which involved requiring you to have the split-screen players joined by wave 1 could be part of a solution.
  5. I was thinking about how hard it is in DD1 (I won't refer to DD2 since I almost only played solo for the average amount of time I played it) to have players successfully build a map together and thought of a couple ideas that could be interesting to explore. Although, this wouldn't be a solution to the split-screen reward problem and would only be realistically do-able in tailor made maps.(DLCs?) I'm just gonna pitch in two ideas. Idea one : A map divided in four separate parts. At first I was thinking of a map like a mine with 4 layers but it would probably be a better idea to have it be more or less flat and have all players be able to see what everyone else is doing if they want. Each part should either be identical or very similar in spawns/difficulty. At the start of the map the DUs would be divided equally among the players. Each player would spawn in their own part. I was thinking every single part would be isolated from each other and everyone would have to handle their own section. Or maybe they should be connected in some way so people can go help others if they need. But I was thinking there would be some kind of portals/jumps to travel to the other parts when missing players to handle the parts with no one in them. So if there were 2 players in the game, both players would be able to go back and forth between their 2 respective parts. With 3 players, 1 player would have 2/4 the DUs and half the map to take care of. Yes a player that joins halfway through wouldn't have DUs to build but did players who joined 2 waves late really ever get to build? Maybe there could be a pregame to let time for people to join where everyone has to ready up to spawn in their lane and have the DUs split. Or the host could just set the map in their tavern and wait for the amount of people they want to play with. This wouldn't guarantee that you beat the map but it would be much easier for everyone to know what they have to do and this would incite all players to build. Also keep in mind that they said we would be able to restart at the wave we just lost on. So failing is gonna be a lot less punishing. This would also fix the possible leaver issues since upon losing on a wave because someone left we would be able to retry that wave and probably have the game redistribute the DUs. This would involve each players killing less enemies individually so a possible fix would be to let each players able to roam the entire map at the end to loot. Another option could be to have all the drops from other parts that's theirs, actually appear in a special spot in their own part of the map. Idea two: The map could be very similar in design to my first idea or it could even be the same map, as it would involve players dealing with their own sides again but it would pit each players against one another instead. The concept is pretty simple. Each players would try to outlast everyone else in a very fast paced and quickly ramping survival. Since everyone would individually have less ground to cover than a regular map there would be much less time, if any, to prepare at any given point. I think there should still be waves, to give you a bit of time to fix what needs to be fixed in between waves. But the waves would be more intense and much shorter than your average survival map. The difficulty would ramp up way quicker too. I was thinking on how the drops should work and just thought that it would be pretty funny if some kind of goblin appeared on your side at specific time intervals and dropped you items.(If you're still alive) I think having the number of goblins showing up to give you items depend on how many players are still alive would be a great way to incite players to play together. This could be made really hard to abuse with fake split-screen if every side required active play from the very first moment all the way to the end. The winner should be rewarded more to make the map even more thrilling. For those that don't like to build and prefer to play a damage hero, there could even be a boss rush version where you can't build and have to use a DPS hero and it could reward DPS based items. ------------------------------- While writing this I was trying to come up with split-screen abuse possible solutions or ones that could apply only to my ideas and I came up with a new one. When playing on the hardest difficulty only, have the split-screen players share the same loot instead of having each of their own instanced to only them. That way all split-screen players would still have access to items to loot. Or maybe increase the amount of items dropped by 50% per player. Quadruple the amount of map rewards while dividing the rolls by 1/4 so that you would have the same chance as before to get a strong item. In split-screen, divide the amount of rewards to give a player by the amount of players in split-screen. If 2 players, 2 each instead of 4 // if 3 players one would have to get 1 more than the others only 1 // if 4 players, 1 for each. The split-screen players could share with each other. This is the "least penalizing" way I can see. Anyway, I highly doubt CG will put in any extra work on solely trying to fix the split-screen abuse issue as this isn't actually something that affects the regular player. Though I really like how my second map idea could potentially prevent the abuse when playing such a map/mode.
  6. You guys respond too fast :D I think of new stuff to add but sometimes I can't even add it before people have responded xD. That's so true. :P I feel the same way. Even making multiplayer even more rewarding wouldn't be a good solution if it's not enjoyable to play. Then you feel forced to play multiplayer which you don't enjoy and have the feeling you're wasting your time if you play solo.
  7. I don't think that's necessarily true. If multiplayer is as rewarding as solo, I still think most people will like to play multiplayer. But if multiplayer is annoying and frustrating to play, people will avoid it. There was no reason for me to play DD1 multiplayer except to get carried in harder maps since you would get all the drops if you played solo. I would have loved to keep playing multiplayer but the downside was too big. Playing with people is more fun and more practical since you don't have to do all the repairing and upgrading by yourself if you were to be building all by yourself. I intend to play most of DDA in multiplayer if it's not actually penalizing. One other thing I've experienced playing DD1 is that it was always up in the air on who joined your game. The only restriction you could apply as to who could join your games was their level. (I just launched DD1 to double check that was an actual thing and I just realized that setting a minimum level to join in your tavern, actually hides your game to anyone logged on a character below that.) Although having a high level character doesn't mean they're well geared. So I was always scared that people not strong enough or don't know what they're doing would join. But they've already announced we would have an option to start a wave over on defeat along another feature which I think has a good chance to be save-able defense presets. So losing will actually be a lot less penalizing. The only problem I still see is that personally, I always felt like I needed the perfect defense setup in order to beat a hard map. I'd like to feel different about that when playing hard maps in DDA as I see that being the main reason I would avoid playing multiplayer aside from solo being more rewarding. With split-screen as it will most likely be, I can't see that not being the case.
  8. I'm sorry but I don't see how the same doesn't apply to you. Anyway I'm done arguing on this pointless feud. I was -aggressive- toward you and this whole argument is going nowhere and isn't gonna bring any good.
  9. You also get 10 FPS in town on PC? I'm extremely skeptical about that. So you were not gonna be playing on PC or Switch AT ALL when you backed the game? Then why would you say : You're absolutely not in our situtation like I said.
  10. Just proves how much you're just a third party in this whole thing who hasn't experienced any of what the people actually annoyed by this situation did. I never said or interpreted it as barely works. There's a huge difference between something that works reasonably well and something that has almost no issues.
  11. Sorry but offering refunds after building your project on a fake promise doesn't count for anything to me. They can't even straight up admit that they lied to us. Instead they're only saying they "Talked about" a simultaneous launch on all platforms. Sorry but this doesn't feel to me like an honest company who feels much remorse about screwing up a part of their long time fans. Because that's what you said. Sorry but if you want people to fully know what you mean, you have to be precise in what you say. Anyway I'll admit, I used that as a pretext to reiterate how much I don't want DDA to just work on PS/XB but work f**** freaking well. : )
  12. Had no clue what you were talking about since I didn't see anything from them on the DDA forum or the kickstarter page nor did I receive any email with an update considering the timed exclusive matter. Had to go on twitter which I do not use ever. "make sure they work?" There's a huge difference between working and working properly. And I'm actually basing my assumptions on facts. DD2 on PS4 is an un-optimized and extremely laggy mess. Even after having been out for years.
  13. If you zoom you can easily see hes got little sticks for legs and arms but sure.
  14. After thinking "no way, DD1 characters are way better", I launched DD1 and checked all the characters and can actually see where you guys are coming from. Some of the characters you guys complained about actually have pretty neat skins though. The one thing I really disliked in DD2 is how skinny most of them are. example : https://wiki.dungeondefenders2.com/images/4/40/Apprentice_Standard_Garb_View.png
  15. To me, that's a totally wrong assumption. It might even have more bugs/issues. It seems they're gonna put their work on the PC and Switch version and then focus on XB and PS for what ever time they'll have left. Even if it doesn't have more issues there's absolutely no guarantee that they'll have fixed switch and pc issues by the time it's out on PS and XB. Just check DD2 after it came out after PC. And I'd much prefer dealing with a few bugs over waiting longer and have cross-savers ahead of us. I'm not sure how a PC only beta is "available at the same time for everyone". Anyway everyone knew the beta was gonna be PC only. Some of us were just hoping we'd see one on consoles at some point later. With the timed exclusivity that's pretty much out the window. You seem pretty uninformed. I am almost certain the simultaneous launch on all platforms, including playstation 4 and xbox 1 was a stretch goal early in the kickstarter and when they raised a lot of money really quickly they removed it and announced that the game would release on all platforms at the same time. There were no poor choice of words. To be honest what triggers me the most in this situation are the people who were not gonna be playing only on playstation/xbox and try to defend them or try to calm us down or stuff like that. I'll be happy to read what anyone has to say and how they feel about this situation if they're actually affected by this. As I've already said, I don't mind waiting longer but I do the fact that after being told we would be playing the game on day 1 as well, not only will we have to wait longer but the very first hour the game will be out on xbox and playstation, some people are already gonna be max level and able to beat most of the game, thanks to the cross-saves. It might not be a competitive game but I was really looking forward to a brand new DD game with everyone starting fresh and "racing" to beat the content and get godly.
×
×
  • Create New...