Jump to content


Junior Defender
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jmhjm

  1. You are actually getting me to post something as I continue my protest of the hero deck. This idea is soooo full of assumptions. Last I read, people were whining they could only group with DPS Huntresses. Unless someone has five of the same niche class and spec, it is far more likely people simply don't have more options. In a P2W model, people they pay gain an unfair advantage. Having unlimited builders is NOT an unfair advantage when so many just want to (and only do) build. Running hundreds of hours of DD1, I don't recall a single run where I wasn't allowed to build if it wasn't solo or I declared I was builder. Typically you are expected to upgrade and repair. Now with more viability running around, you can upgrade, repair, and DPS. I don't need to pay a penny to do that. Lastly, the money making idea of cosmetics only still involves having a player willing to part with money. If there is a legit reason someone WANTS more characters, or WANTS more outfits, they can both pay. There are no gates involved by not paying. There is no advantage at all.
  2. Given you might get 4 or 5 properly rolled items per run (of which maybe 1 is an upgrade), how low will the drop rate be? The counterpoint to quality over quantity is that gamers are, by nature, obsessed with numbers. Everyone wants to DPS to see the big numbers (no one wants to raid heal or tank). I bought 4 extra bags because I was getting so much every run. If I magically go from 8 bags of loot per run to 1, I better get my gems back for those 4 bags. Since I'm boycotting DD2 until they hero deck is removed, I've been going back to different free MMOs. One thing to realize is that drop rates for items, even gray crap, is higher than Dungeon Defenders. Pretty much every other mob drops at least one thing (money included). I think you are going about fixing loot the wrong way. I don't think the issue is too much loot nor gray -> blue being useless 99% of the time. I think the issue is that your legendary (which drops waaaaaay more than other games) and epic (also waaaaaaaay more than other games) is too random. I don't expect greens and, to a lesser extent, blues to necessarily be 'ideal rolls'. If an epic drops in a game, I'm doing a dance because it should be something that either sells for a ton OR I know it's going to be an upgrade. If a legendary drops, I better be able to equip it on some character. This is true in virtually every game with loot. I run NM3 and know I have an epic or legendary item via the chest. It doesn't matter any more because 99% of the time it's vendor trash. This is the issue. It isn't quantity. It's that your "rarest" of loot is far too worthless. Instead of going from one extreme to the other, how about landing in the same middle of EVERY other game.
  3. Regarding OP - there was a very small amount of this in DD1, but it was usually if you were like a level 40 trying to help build and then a guy pulled out a level 80 - you understood immediately why you shouldn't build anything. I think this above all else is a big thorn that adds to the demise of how we treat one another online. I think DD2 has started to fracture a bit. I still go back and play DD1 from time to time - it still holds up with our shorter attention spans, our thirst to win, have freedom, etc. DD2 is like the ultra strict, "you can have fun if you follow my annoying rules" class from college that everyone dropped or never attended. In DD2, we have a similar story line, four similar characters (so far at least), a few similar defenses (albeit some function a little differently), and some returning mobs. Otherwise, it seems like this game is quickly turning into a "based on DD1" and not a true sequel. Every successful series seems to stay successful because they update and introduce only minor changes from edition to edition. Most of these take place behind the scenes of actual gameplay, too. Here's a brief list to emphasize this point... The good- Mario (2d) - Same basic game. Updated visuals. Since Super Mario III, added a map the player moved through out, gave some options in terms of levels to play. Mario Kart/Smash Bros - Lumping together. Pretty much the visuals change, the maps change, and the line ups change. Pretty much every FPS game - The same with variations on updated maps, weapons (still primarily function the same - projectiles), and graphics. The stories/locations obviously are what separates these franchises. Temple Run/Angry Birds - Two games that have several sequels that are virtually clones of one another (in their respective franchises). There is very little someone needs to learn going from one sequel to the next. The Sims - Virtually the only thing that changed is your options for interacting, visuals, and what amounts to the quantity of skins for items. The bad- SimCity - The first four games in the series were essentially updated graphically with small twists. The most recent one came out and started messing with mechanics/DRM rights. Look what happened... Sonic - Many of these games were the same 'endless runner'-type platformers. I have played some of the newer ones, but I understand the formulas for the games started getting so far from the original that even Sega has apologized to its fans. World of Warcraft - The ultimate MMORPG has been dropping subscribers left and right since like the third expansion. It sees modest bumps in users when it launches a new expansion, but then numbers start dropping once again. Plants vs Zombies - First game was a huge hit. Second game had a limited release and was P2W or grind your life away. Third game was a failed FPS PVP game. DD1 gave us more variety in building, methods to counter most everything (removing resistances, all items functioned as AA, etc), unlimited hero deck, no real meta, boss fights, no objectives to make or break a run, less "trash" to fill bags (I realize this will be a major point for the devs income - I think F2P was a mistake), smoother leveling process, fun challenges, endless modes that gave unique rewards, unique weapons/armor for beating various challenges/maps, and an experience that was fun both solo and multiplayer (I can only speak of solo in DD2, but I played both in DD1). I realize this is still Alpha, but I don't see DD2 as ever becoming a true sequel in my eyes of DD1. It makes me sad because it seems that the Dungeon Defenders series is more likely to go the way of Plants Vs. Zombies (already failed with the MOBA idea). I'm not sure why the devs didn't really play it safe and release a new "DD1" with update visuals, new maps, new skins, new items, and call it DD2. They went and started screwing too much with mechanics and it's going to kill the franchise.
  4. You lost me without any mention of the hero deck going to crap in DD2. DD1, anyone could bring in any character they wanted into any game. In DD2, a solo player can try to bring in 3 builders+1 DPS or 4 builders while multiplayers have a lot more flexibility. Total finger given to solo players.
  5. I do not believe Trendy want to punish solo players but they almost certainly do not want to encourage them (over solo play) either. How would this be encouraging people to play solo? They are actively encouraging people to play multiplayer and yet a vocal population exists of solo players. As Ian Malcolm once said, "live finds a way". Unless they remove the options for solo or multiplayer, people will continue to play both. The question is if the quality of life is equal for both. I think widely the solo community is screaming no while Trendy's response was "let's create a poorly done survey that will support our putting this off instead of addressing a major issue".
  6. Right back at you. Why should a solo player be punished for NOT playing in a group? Also, a person isn't punished for playing in a group. They can still bring at least ONE character they want, maybe two, three, or all four depending on the make of the group. This isn't a MOBA or FPS multiplayer where x number are needed to actually have a game. The original didn't require a group to have access to more characters. This is just plan old dumb.
  7. TL:DR - Create a solo only button on the splash screen. Allow strictly solo players the same 8 characters that a duo can bring (four per person). I know there are 1,000 ideas floating around. As a solo player, I feel that the survey did not properly address the underlying, undeniable issue - a solo game can have four characters, a duo can have eight, a trio can have 12, and a quartet can have 16. While content is doable as a solo player, the replay value falls off a cliff. Already at NM3, I'm finding less and less reason to try one or two tiers easier content with a DPS substituted for my waller because (a) I probably already have DPS gear with appropriate passives from the builder version of that class and (b) it isn't worth the time trying to get ideal gear for a character I literally cannot use. You are losing money because I have no burning desire to invest in costumes to distinguish between my DPS huntress (or monk/apprentice) that collect dust and builder equivalents beyond the early adapter costumes and the normal ones. All my gems have gone to bag slots (I have 8+pet) and character slots (I have 8). In the future, I would not be interested in paying to unlock a new character nor paying to unlock a second or third slot (for a builder and DPS pair) since I am at the mercy of the four class/spec combinations that can ensure I can win as a solo player. A solo player is also more likely to need more character slots, which can not be unlocked with easily farmable Wyvern tokens, as they have to bring all the characters to the party. Just think - if you allow 8 characters for solo players, and only give 4 for free, they will probably take out their credit card. Here is a solution that probably shouldn't take much time to implement, ruin balance, or anything else. Create a third button on the splash page - "Solo only". I think the solo community would be perfectly happy to leave their "Solo only" tavern if they decided to play with others. In the "Solo only" mode, allow 8 characters in the hero deck. That way, a solo game can AT LEAST have the same number of characters in a two person game. If you really want, nix the ilevel from the gear by 5 levels or something. I realize I don't speak for all solo players, but I have no interested in playing multiplayer. I know I'm not the only one either. I want to have fun playing a game or I'm likely to leave...you do have Christmas coming up - a time people typically see an influx of new opportunities to try new games. If I'm stuck playing NM2-4 with the same four character/spec combinations and win 90% of the time or else die 90% of the time, there is no way I am turning down the chance to find a new game at a great price (Steam Winter Sale) or free (a Christmas gift). If this is not implemented in the next two months or less, a portion of your player base will either stop playing as much or leave altogether - like I said, Christmas is coming. I know you boasted about your 11 hours per player numbers. I don't think most PC gamers are investing money into a F2P game after 11 hours. They are probably still in the campaign and don't even have all their deck slots unlocked. I bet you have active forum goers and players that play 11 hours in one sitting fairly often. Similarly, your survey did NOT ask preferred method of play - random group, friend group, solo. Why was a question not about how many hours have been played and in what capacity - solo, duo, trio, quartet? What good is having information if it isn't relevant? As I already pointed out, solo players are the largest hit by the hero deck. As the forum has already pointed out, many people that play multiplayer are bringing the characters they want to play with, not what characters are required to play. Until this is addressed, a solo player in the NM2-4 range has lost this ability. They are required to only bring the characters required to play, not the ones they actually enjoy playing. This really, really, positively kills the game. Honestly, people are giving you this feedback because they want to continue playing the game. Being in development, they are giving you the benefit of the doubt that it will change sooner rather than later - thus they stick around a little longer. Once DD2 goes full release, you will see numbers drop with all the people that are unhappy about the lack of changes. Maybe some of them are because of the hero deck. Maybe some of them are because of some other issue that doesn't get resolved. The point is you as developers are getting the benefit of the doubt with a game under construction. That all goes away in about a year or less (if 2016 is really your launch). The hero deck is easily the most complained about thing on the forum. I promise you that saying a poorly done survey tells you it's okay to put it on the back burner for a while will result in a loss from your player base. While I'm not a programmer, pretty much every industry has the same motto - the customer is always right. If different customers are creating near daily threads and these threads are filled with different people agreeing with the need for change, you might want to listen to them. I think the official response to an earlier thread asking about the results from the questionnaire was either poorly done or arrogant.
  8. I play strictly solo and don't bother watching videos so I'm sure my method is different - I just beat a NM3 tier 3 map (Greystone) without a huntress or DPS- haven't tried it with the huntress instead of the apprentice yet. Just yesterday I decided to start using the apprentice for the first time in about 2 weeks (when I realized I needed a dedicated waller starting on NM2) so I've cleared NM3 maps with and without the use of the frost tower. My normal deck: Squire (waller) Squire (cannon/harpoon) Monk (serenity aura with legendary passive weapon, AA/basic lightning aura) Apprentice (builder) / Huntress (builder - has both elemental chaos and stickynades- only ubers I have) I only ever play three maps really- Gates of Dragonfall, Liferoot Forest, and Greystone Plaza. My set up is virtually the same for every map. The numbers vary due to DU limitations. The OCD in me keeps all lanes as mirror images of each other as possible. ------ Two AA towers. All non-physical resist lanes get 3-4 cannons + 1 harpoon + 1-2 walls (depending on width of lane). All physical resist lanes gets: 1-2 walls, 3 lightning auras (2 that barely overlap and one that fits into that overlap), 1 serenity aura (for monk legendary passive). If using the Apprentice: 3-4 fire towers, 1 frost tower If using the Huntress: 3-4 PDTs depending on map/DU remaining and an elemental chaos trap or two. A couple times, if DU allowed, I have used a boost aura with barrier health buff on the "high traffic" lane for even higher wall health (on NM3 only). ------ As far the waves themselves go, I'll judge which character to use based on the high traffic lane and bosses. If the heavy traffic lane is in the physical resist lane, I make sure to use my huntress or apprentice. I really only trust my monk on no boss, 'non-physical resist are high traffic' waves. I NEVER use my tower squire, only my waller one - has like 3-4x the health. When in doubt, I use my waller since he has the highest health by a long shot. The stun works just fine as a short CC effect, when needed. I haven't been as patient moving through NM3 so far or it could just be the increased difficulty, but I normally knew it was time for the next map when I could alt-tab or twiddle my thumbs during the waves. On my first run of the day, I did NM3 Liferoot. I sacrificed the Chub or whatever so two magic resist lanes came through. I did use two frost towers here and I think about 7 cannon towards and 2 harpoons on the middle double lane. I had double ogres plus a high traffic lane on the last wave. I moved the harpoon from my "easy" lane" for extra power. It was actually a fairly boring final wave.
  9. If you played DD1, it wasn't like that at all, at least playing with randoms. Typically there was one guy that had higher level chars of the 3-4 classes required to do much. As a solo player, it isn't so much that I want to make 20 level 50 characters that can do niche things. It's that NM2-4 pretty much require at least 1 character specialized in making walls. You typically need at least one character for physical resist and one character for magic resist. I haven't gotten to NM4 yet, so maybe this will chance, but Monk's AA tower is still the best in my set up. That's four characters. About half the gear that drops is for DPS and yet, as a solo player, literally cannot do anything, but give it to my DPS character that I never get to play or sell it. I think the main issue here, which hopefully Trendy addresses, is for one set of rules for solo players and one set of rules for grouping. In theory, a group of four friends have access to 16 characters. Each person could make two niche builders and two of whatever they want. You would then net 8 niche, specialized builders, and another 8 DPS/builders, depending on what people wanted to play (how nice would that be!?). Many MMORPGs with PVE and PVP elements (like WoW, Rift, etc.) have had issues with balancing abilities and gear for PVP play and PVE, since they offer different needs. I know WoW had a big issue with this when I played it. I know there some games like City of Heroes where stats/abilities had totally different rules and even functionality in solo play. While I'm not saying I think solo players should have a cannon that shoots two projectiles, I think allowing at LEAST 8 characters would be fair (I got 8 from the number the smallest possible group could bring). We already have a button for starting the game with a private tavern. Why not add one for "strictly solo"?
  10. English please. Looking through lots and lots of DD1 forum pages (admittedly skipping from about pg 25 to 50 to 80), I didn't see any threads in the 30 pages regarding complaints about having access to bring and use all characters. While I realize you have more info, perhaps the issue here is the fact people (a) never played DD1, (b) don't miss the timers and frantically clicking the rough a list to find the right player and clicking another button to select, (c) are super casual players and haven't progressed to harder parts - 1,000,000 downloads with 10,000,000 hours (your stats, not mine) means the average player has logged 10 hours. So while I won't dismiss your data collection, perhaps there should have been additional questions. There is clearly a percentage of your dedicated player base that is unhappy. Maybe getting results that don't support that need more than the five questions or so. If someone has yet to try the game solo, there experience will be vastly different than a strictly solo player. A player that's logged 10 hours from pre-Alpha might have just finished up campaign. They wouldn't have the same struggles as someone on NM3 or NM4. For the record - I've logged around 300 hours, have 8 characters (2 of each class, 7 of them lvl 50), just beat my first attempt of third tier NM3, and only ever play solo. I do not even know what people think the meta is as I consider myself a casual addict that happens to read the forums. I don't watch videos to know what others build. I personally feel a lack of creativity in building. I always have two squires (cannon/harpoon and waller) and a monk (for AA). So I have to decide between a huntress, apprentice, or DPS. As a solo player, I cannot take a DPS and focus on the physical lane since I need to occasionally help or repair other lanes.
  11. I'm almost ready to start NM3 (strictly solo player, too). I think it depends on your build and the lane. I run tower squire, wall squire, monk, and huntress (no DPS). I don't care much about them, except when summoners are with them. Even then, my walls have enough health it isn't certain death. I've been alt-tabbing depending on wave make up/bosses. I usually smash (pole or shield) or oil/fire them. I also keep an eye on tower/wall health.
  12. Yes but they opened this up to us to help them by providing feedback. I'm not sure about you but when the community has been screaming at the top of their lungs to fix things I expect them to at least be addressed. This huge influx of players stands to dwindle away very quick. The overall game play is very fun at first then it drops like a freaking rock once you have to grind after level 30. I don't mind grinding if I am being entertained while I do it and right now I'm not. Things like useless towers, mid game scaling issues (XP and difficulty), hero deck, matchmaking, all these contribute to making the game very boring after a while. Who are the most two favored heroes? I would say the huntress and squire. Those two have gotten all the attention with a small pass on the the monk and apprentice. The last three months of patches has been focused on the inventory system. Yes I like the changes but here's the kicker, no one was complaining about it at all. They could have been fixing all this stuff then fixed the Inv system. Which by the way I understand why it need to be overhauled, it makes money. TL:DR since July there hasn't been any worth while changes that have been able to bring me back to want to play. FYI I have not even played the new maps. While I agree they opened themselves up to it. We, the players, opened ourselves up to playing a game in development. Players have every right to give suggestions, but some people are acting like this game is at the same developmental state as any other game that has launched their full release. People are getting overly emotionally invested in game that could technically cease to receive anymore updates and close shop. Yes, I play when I have time (7 month old daughter) and I have hundreds of hours invested. I also understand I'm merely a tester right now that will be at end-game content at release. As long as everyone at Trendy is working towards the same goal end goal of a fun, balanced game with lots of content, I welcome and thank them for any and all updates. While I'm sure Trendy is bummed some people are vocal about not playing as protest, I'm sure they are looking at overall login data. I'm guessing they are happy with what they see or else they would change course. I'm sure you'll enjoy full release if/when you decide to come back. TL:DR- Pre-release games are like new relationships. Don't be overly invested (as the player) too early and you won't get hurt.
  13. I think there is a warning/notice on Steam stating early access. The developer is free to develop the game in the way they want. It could have very easily had no early access and you wouldn't have a clue...maybe all the goblins were really unicorns until just before release.
  14. DD1 didn't have passive item builds. You are right. It had random rewards (particularly weapons) that would have dumb stats. Same thing. What difference does a passive stat versus an active stat make? It's a randomly generated item with randomly generated stats. A builder didn't need the big explosive gun from Tinkerer's Lab, yet it could still roll with builder stats. Or you would get projectiles that were pointless for all, but swords. What's the difference? RNG is RNG. Let the game hit launch before people demand it be dumbed down like WOW. Who knows...passives could all be changed into new spheres. The goal of any of these games is to farm/grind gear.
  15. Go run a DD1 map. Totally illogical stats are not new in DD nor in RNG games.
  • Create New...