Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

67 Excellent

1 Follower

About Windex

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I do not think that DD1's way of forcing you to afk on lower level characters to level them was good but I also don't like the hero deck giving equal EXP to all 4 heroes equally. I feel like a lot of people really don't want anything similar to it and have given a couple arguments without too much merit. ---- The difficulty point I saw brought up was because split-screen makes the game harder which is true. Leveling can be a reward in itself, not because of the difficulty but because of the dedicated effort put into it. I've always been a fan of games with very hard to reach level caps because reaching high levels felt special and it could be a goal in itself. I remember meeting players in DD1 with a lot of lvl100 characters and being impressed. It's not something you necessarily want to focus on but it's nice when it's something you can also work on while doing anything else. Running a map over and over and not getting a single useful drop is not progression, but at least, getting exp is progressing. (I'm not talking about playing worthless content) I get what you mean but even with a hero deck sharing exp, any new hero you make would still be unusable until it leveled enough. You just wouldn't be forced to play it until it did like you were reffering to. Pretty terrible example since I always made decent money when afk leveling my characters in endgame and on pretty hard maps for my strength. I personally never played any easy as hell content to "afk" level any characters. How would we use the characters not in our hero deck? I feel that you guys are overlooking some of the reason that made it so you had to spend so much time leveling all your characters individually : The level cap was raised many times. Every new max level was the new endgame. The initial max level really wasn't that bad to get and it took months to increase, giving you plenty of time to. But when you start the game late, those caps are not staggered anymore. It's very likely that in DDA, only something like the 10 last levels will be hard to reach on release. It also shouldn't be really hard to exp boost anything to a level close to that. I believe a bigger issues was that you needed to be that current max level to equip the gear. From my experience, you could acquire gear well before you had the level to equip it, even on your highest character. From the last quote, you pretty much had the same issue. You acquire the next best equipment but don't have the levels required yet since there are no in-between items. The progression in DD1 was very very rough, at least earlier on. The gap from insane to nm was huge. You needed all your character to have the level required to equip your best item quality. Right now with the limited rarities in the beta compared to DD1, I'd venture to say that there won't be level requirement tied to the rarity but rather depending on the content it drops from. So the gear's level requirement should be more spread out and more accessible. I don't get this statement. It can be also be used in favor of DD1's leveling system. Getting boosted will be 4x faster. Making being max level even less meaningful. ------- I don't WANT DD1's leveling system in DDA. I just want a max level that feels "special" to reach. I want it to be a goal in itself. Something to work towards for a long time while farming for anything you want. I don't mind the current hero deck if reaching max level still takes a lot of time. Maybe the best gear wouldn't go as high as requiring max level to be equipped and the few levels above that would only reward a couple lvl-up stat points and those few extra levels would be extremely hard to gain. I don't mean to have any content hidden behind some level wall. Those extra levels would be pretty much just for bragging rights. Although it probably wouldn't mesh very well with potential level cap increases. I just don't like the current implementation. I saw a lot of people say that DD1's leveling system was flawed and to me it still does in DDA. Is it fixed because you don't have to split-screen for maximum efficiency anymore and instead get the same result for free? I have already mentioned this in another thread ; The main problem with DD's leveling is that you can access any content you've unlocked with every single one of your characters. I personally feel like it doesn't make sense for your characters to have individual levels at that point. If you can level characters without even using them, what's even the point. Build the entire map with your 4 high level characters, switch your entire hero deck for 3-4 low level ones and power level up to 4 characters at once without ever playing them. How is this not really flawed. At that point why not just have some kind of global defender level instead of chararacters levels. It would help all your characters to have the same max mana that scales with your global level and all characters would be able to upgrade towers equally. It doesn't make sense to hide upgrading towers behind a level requirement if you can just hot swap to a higher character and upgrade. Anyway, here are a couple suggestion for alternatives to the way it currently works in the beta. A global level instead of individual levels The exp is split amongst all characters in your hero deck. 2 Heroes = 50% exp each. 3 Heroes = 33% exp 4 Heroes = 25% exp You have to set a leader/main hero and only that hero gets exp. You don't have to be playing it to get exp. It just has to be in your deck and set as leader/main. Like some also stated, I'm just giving my opinion and not really looking to argue. This is a very opinionated subject and not really one you can change someone's opinion about. I'd just like CG to come up with a final result that, both the people not wanting leveling to be much of a bother and those looking for leveling to be a "real" progression along with gear, can appreciate. <3
  2. Console versions of PC games should often have some aspects adapted for the different controls. When playing with a controller, too many elements on the screen can not only make it harder to see from a farther distance but also harder to navitage. I suggest having a more advanced filter menu accessible with the press of a button, at least for consoles/controller. This would open a window with nothing but filter settings and nothing superficial, making it easier to navigate and easy to read. Different platforms shouldn't mean you can't have the same features on both. There just has to be some adaptation done. I really like the filters example you gave. Although, I'm not sure why someone would not want to see an item with more than X stats :P. We really need filters that save and can be reset with the press of a button or changed by selecting a different filter of the same category.
  3. I would like this too. There is just no good reason to force you into having to see all the junk that drops that you will never even look at. It's only purpose is to be annoying and in the way when you're trying to actually look at something else. Please add as many optional filters as possible. The problem is that, like any ideas that have been given on the forums, this penalizes people playing split-screen legitimately. This is similar to having split-screen players share the same loot and having a single map reward. Both ways you're missing out on loot. A solution could be to have split-screen players logged in on the same account share the same loot and hero deck since they're all playing the player one's characters. While making the loot obtained playing split-screen, while logged in on different accounts, untradeable.
  4. I have been assuming that item levels in dda will only be governed by the map+difficulty you're playing. Even whites on massacre would require something like lvl50+. My initial thought was to have a filter that allowed you to pick what PWR you wanted to show on your map. Your suggestion wouldn't really work if the harder content doesn't drop lower level items. If that's the case, what do we need highlighted if everything is mostly the same level. With the current system, it really seems that we'd just want Epics and Legendaries highlighted. I was mostly trying to make it more fun to find items and wasn't adressing map filters. Currently it kinda feels like a flawed system if an equipment's level requirement is based on the content in drops in. If it's not how it works, then it would have to be tied to the rarity so that would mean that you can only equip greens starting at lvl 10, blue starting at lvl20, etc, all the way to Legendary or w/e above it. This would mean you don't keep going back to greens/blues from legendaries all game long but with so few rarities currently in the beta, this doesn't seem interesting. If the level is tied to the rarity and the final game does have multiple rarities above legendary then tha's very similar to DD1 and I won't complain. But they seem to have adapted a classic rarity range and games usually only have 1 or 2 qualities beyond that at most. To reiterate, with only a few rarities you pretty much have to tie the level requirement on gear to the content. Unless you want people to wear white to level 10 and blues to 20 and so on. Yes DD1 works that way but it's way more spread out. Performances on consoles and itemization were my main concerns about DDA. There's just nothing to be done to help guarantee the first one and I think I've voiced the other as best as I could. I liked what I saw regarding itemization from the moment I saw the inventory screenshots from one of the monthly update. Personally I wouldn't have minded negative stats. I wasn't expecting a lot fewer rarities though. Maybe there will be a bunch more on release, hopefully. I'm just hoping there will still be a few extremely rare ones. And yes I know that it doesn't necessarily mean a useful item and I don't want it to. I'm not a fan of min maxing without actual progress but if you put those few extra stats on a better rarity, I'll have something to try and actually get. Even if it's essentially gaining the same stats as min maxing the other item. I'm just gonna stop there until release and hope they listen to everyone's feedback as best as they can.
  5. I do no want it more streamlined no. And you would not. Since rather than having what ever is the rarest quality going to be, drop a lot with ranges from like 10k to 20k power, you would have rarities above that so you would instantly see an item with 16k power since it would be something like 2 rarities above what ever the rarity for items with 10-12k Power is. To me, having anything between 10k to max be what ever the last rarity is, is streamlined. Even if an item has a lot of power, it doesn't mean it has useful rolls. What I suggested still does the same thing. An item with a higher rarity, obtained within the same content, is by nature most likely going to have more PWR or am I completely wrong with the way it works in the beta? You seem to have missed my overall point. I don't want to be looking for the same, what ever is the highest rarity, from start to ultimate end game. Yes. But imagine already getting Ultimate++ on insane or starting from deeper wells NM and it being common to find. DDA doesn't have as many maps but it will have nightmare and massacre on release and currently there aren't enough rarities to have a few feel very special. Like I said, if there are like 6-7 rarities above orange/legendary, unlocking progressively with content, then I'll have no issue.
  6. I'm pretty sure nothing you said is relevant to anything I said..
  7. @Fatheredpuma81 brought the same concern. The new rarities, with Legendary being quite possibly the highest one in the full game, ruin endgame. (At least for some people) It seems item progression in DDA will work like this : In the easier content you might find an orange item with 100 power but the harder content's white items will drop with over 200 power. So your entire item progression is trying to be fully equipped with orange items and starting over from whites/greens on harder content, over and over. At the very end-game, you will be fully equipped with the rarest items and only trying to find more but with slightly better stats/more PWR. This is a system that's absolutely not appealing to me. My main goal and reason to keep playing and grinding in DD1 was to try and reach content that could reward the next rarity I needed. A very rare drop felt really exciting to see and getting a full set rewarded you with an ever better set bonus. Always finding legendaries and having to inspect all of them and only realizing it's actually better after inspecting it, prevents the excitement of seing the item beforehand. I understand simplifying the rarities to make it less confusing for new players and easier to understand. I'm suggesting an option to let the player enable more rarities. (Only if they choose to enable it) This is a raw idea. The option if turned on, would replace the original rarities and add a lot more rarities spread throughout PWR 1 to the max possible PWR to find. Rarity 1 = Any item with PWR between 1-24 Rarity 2 = Any item with PWR between 25-49 Rarity 3 = Any item with PWR between 50-99 Rarity 4 = Any item with PWR between 100-199 Rarity 5 = Any item with PWR between 200-349 Rarity 6 = Any item with PWR between 350-599 And so on. I don't think this would take much work to add. This would simply change how a player sees item rarities. Players using different rarity displays could still adress items using their PWR, which is probably already going to happen. Although, unlike DD1, if this was tied to the item's PWR this would almost guarantee that a more rare item is stronger. Maybe a different implementation could work differently. Unforntunately, this doesn't address the legendary set bonus being the biggest bonus. This is all assuming orange/legendary is the highest rarity or that there are only one or two above it in total. Edit : It seems that if switching back and forth between rarities is actually a thing, it will be really confusing to know if you're actually getting stronger or weaker because of the change in set bonuses.
  8. Sadly, at this stage in development there isn't really enough time to add completely new things. I think your least liked idea could be more impactful. If the community was unanimous enough, maybe we could stop them from having stuff in the final game that nobody wants/likes. Right now we would need them tell us everything about the game for us to make relevant feedback. Unfortunately, we're left to giving feedback on features based almost entirely on what's in the beta. Personally, I really liked DD1 on PC. I had a very bad experience performance wise with DD2 on PS4. The thing I would like changed most from DD1 would be for Survival to be shorter. I would rather do 3 two hours ones than one 6 hours long. I have seen a lot of people saying a new game shouldn't be the same as the one before but I really don't see a problem with taking things from the previous/original game and adding new things like modes, heroes, better graphics and new maps while improving previous features/content. I believe it's possible to still have things people have mixed opinions about, you just have to not force them on everyone. A good example would be negative stats on gear in DD1. They seem to have removed negative stats, at least as far as the beta is concerned. Maybe there could be a game mode that could drop gear with negative stats. Players who liked negative stats and being forced to make choices based on those and use characters for very precise roles would still have the ability to do so. It just comes down to balancing both categories of players to make them balanced Power/Playtime wise.
  9. I would prefer if your max mana on any of your character was based off of your highest level character and all your heroes just had what ever max amount that character can have. Personally, I liked how your max mana monitored when you were able to reach the next towers upgrade. To me, this is not a relevant comparison. I like big numbers when they represent your progression. After 300 hours, I would prefer to do 10x more damage than I did at the start rather than 2x. I absolutely don't need the mana enemies drop to increase with the amount of time spent. Especially since like you guys pointed out, mana and gold are different currencies and mana is just a resource and it never leaves a map. Although, you guys were talking about how you had to get a low of mana in DD1 since it was also used to use the forge, the shop, trade, etc. But most of your mana came from selling items and start of wave items auto sell. All that mana was never accessible for you to use on towers and such in your map. So I don't really agree that we can't have a mana dropped from enemies balance similar to DD1 in DDA because of that. But I don't think we should be able to fully upgrade every defenses as early as we did in DD1, even with no genies. The mana dropped should obviously scale up with waves but it would probably be more interesting to have choices to make on the order that you upgrade your defenses, almost all the way to the last wave instead of having everything maxxed before the halfway mark and have nothing to do but repair and dps if you have to. My main problem with the beta's mana is what I posted in another thread ;
  10. Firstly, I was on the side of preferring how gaining Exp on only the active hero worked in DD1 compared to having all the characters on your hero deck like it does in the beta. The only reason why I would prefer leveling in DD1 compared to the beta is that getting to level 100 was a goal and something to progress toward besides gearing up and beating more content. Despite doing a map and not getting anything of value out of it, you'd still make some progress level wise. I wouldn't mind the current hero deck with all heroes getting an equal amount of Exp if getting to max level still takes a considerable amount of time. Like previously mentioned, the biggest issue with leveling in DD1 was that despite using heroes to build you wouldn't even be able to equip the gear you found because you didn't play them in a wave and didn't get levels. It seems to me that the actual problem is that in Dungeon Defenders, the content you do is not directly tied to one character. You can play something and use any characters. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a global level? I myself at first thought that this wasn't a good idea but after thinking more about it, it kept making more sense. What's even the point of having 4 characters level equally at the same time. Why not just make it more "straight forward", as long as you still have to spend a lot of time to get to max level. Currently, what will happen when you want to level new characters for specific roles? You'll just set them in your hero deck and use heroes not currently there to power level those. The same thing for new DLC characters, most people won't play them and start the entire content over. They'll just power level them to the content they're at. If you can simply do that, why not just have some kind of Defender level or something, that affects what gear any hero can use. As long as getting to max level is still a long process. Again, I prefer playing and leveling each character over that, but if you can level 4 heroes at once, what's even the point. I totally agree about the mana. I never understood the complete change from DD1 to DD2 and it seems we got the same DD2 mana. DD1's mana was nice to look at felt good to pick up. With different sounds depending on their value. It felt a lot better to kill an ogre and see a huge chunk of 500 blue mana along with the unique sound it made when you picked it up, over it just dropping a larger amount of small mana.
  11. I have played my fair share of DD1. More than enough to call them maps and not : You're trying to make it sound like that would be broken if abused which it would absolutely not be. I'm absolutely not saying we need such a feature but I see QoL advantages to having it. The only counter argument I've seen is the fact that lazy people could possibly use that to perfectly copy builds. Which even if that was the case, that still only helps them as much as your gear combined with it can. It also doesn't affect anyone else if someone uses it that way. Would that undermine you beating the hardest survival map all by yourself with absolutely no help? No.
  12. I really fail to see how any of this makes sense. Go ahead and place defenses completely randomly and then rebuild them at the exact same pixel and see how that helps you after you failing miserably. Sure someone could make a video showing you how to build your towers to the millimeter so you can copy them if you want to. That's absolutely not helping more than how planners or youtube videos already are and that's also something solely private to that person and totally independent to everyone else. If you don't like the idea of copying people's builds, you don't and anyone that does absolutely doesn't affect you. So in that train of thought are we to find a way to prevent stuff like DDplanners?
  13. And what's preventing you from practicing on something that's not timed? And even that's not necessary. Copying someone's build really isn't that hard.
  14. Could work the same way for save-able defense layouts. It wouldn't feel bad like wasting 15 minutes trying to figure out a map for the first time on a lower difficulty and failing miserably and having to start over from scratch, at least you'd have some pointers. Then when playing higher difficulties you'd have a good enough idea on how to build on that map to not need that feature. That's already something you can do. Watch a video 2-3 times and practice building that 2-3-4 times and you have the same result of what you're protesting against. o.o
  15. They said we'd be able to restart a wave we failed on which to me is way worse than this idea. What's your take on that?
  • Create New...