Last Active
  • Re: Release 2.6 for PC and PS4 - Patch Notes

    ShadeDev said:
    liels said:
    Harmonia said:

    Ceiling Ballista and Dragon Lance:

    • Damage increased by 20%.
    • Cooldown increased by 20%.
      Developer Comment: This change is designed to further accentuate the ballista's role as a large minion killer.

    We've discussed all of these perspectives quite significantly.  Before I give my perspective, understand that your perspective is not wrong.  However, at the end of the day, the design team has to make difficult decisions.  It is very difficult to please everyone.

    Players hate having things nerfed; it feels like the game de-values the time they spent grinding and learning.  However, if we only buff under-used items, then player power will only inflate over time.  This is a problem, because it means the game will eventually stop being challenging.  

    So why do we feel the need to make balance changes (and nerfs)?  Replayability in a tower defense comes from diversity in strategies.  All of the traps do have intended strengths and weaknesses, but they are not necessarily explicit.  We hope the player notices that spike traps have trouble hitting runners, brimstone/firecrackers are good at catching runners, tar is good at preventing traps from missing, physics are good against small minions, etc.

    The more a player feels like there is only a "single right answer" or a "universal strategy", the less replayability will exist and the faster players typically get bored.  Furthermore, it reduces the need to have many traps for different situations.

    So why not increase the number of slots?  We actually believe this has the opposite of the perceived effect.  Choices are more interesting when you cannot use every trap you want.  When you can take every trap you might want to use, there's no incentive to re-evaluate and change your build from game to game.

    Anyhow, I hear you.  Hopefully you will find the changes make the game more enjoyable overall, after you have had a chance to experiment with new strategies.

    With the trigger buffs and guardian changes, I firmly believe that player power was overall buffed.
    I agree that player power was overall buffed; you might need to buff minions to re-balance ... exactly to your point; I agree that you don't want creeping player power. My point about there always being something that is usually better than others remains ... when the player base finds it you'll be in the same boat you started in, and you'll move our cheese to our irritation :)

    I'm skeptical about the trap slots and creativity ... what has "helped" was nerfing the power generator which has given me an additional slot. Before that change, almost always there would be 'cade, damaging floor trap (probably scorcher, even after nerf), (v)tar, power gen, damaging wall trap (or spike wall), BGH ballista and damaging ceiling trap (probably ballista, but maybe haymaker depending on the map); that's everything with no room for other things. If I had another couple of slots I might well try unusual things. (but probably not mana or health buffs ... as you note, those can be gotten by gear (or potions). Adding even 2 slots might make things a lot more interesting.

    Finally, I'm still irritated about the stunning accumulator nerf. It was fun to use flip traps as a damaging floor trap for big minions, and I miss it.
  • Re: Release 2.3 for PC - Deadeye

    The map is easy at the moment because of this tactic. It's probably the easiest map on rift lord chaos since the minions have to walk a mile from wave one and by wave 3 you have enough money to build the tactic.

    The only negative is when you get expensive barricades. But still then you can have most the minions being tossed off the map. Then a simple trap room which you can save up money for on the right side.
    The last L8 CT I played we lost on Crogon even using that strategy ... even though the mods were not all that bad.  Collectively we were just not the greatest players (nor the worst).  If Robot needs to make it impossible for the very best players to have an easy map or two once a clever barricading strategy is discovered, well that's one perspective.  It is just one that I disagree with.   Crogon was "fine" since Open beta ... apparently balancing for the very best players in CT is what is important.  To my original point which an "easy" Crogon supports ... players that are clever or in community should be able to get a real advantage.  The other side of the argument is that it is not necessary to balance e.g. Crogon against players that have found the strategy for the benefit of those that have not.
  • Re: Sabotage Matchmaking

    ShadeDev said:
    We have been hearing lots of complaints surrounding matchmaking.  In 2.2, we will be making changes that should make matches more fair, however, they could potentially increase queue times, so we will be monitoring the status of matchmaking closely.  Without going into the inner working of how matchmaking functions, here is the general idea:
    • Sabotage matchmaking will now pick easier battlegrounds when there is a high skill separation between players.
    • Players will lose rank for leaving/disconnecting from a game.
    • Sabotage matchmaking will now more aggressively try to create games with:
      • Similar account level
      • Similar skill level
      • Similar party size
    Thanks for the feedback thus far!  We are looking forward to bringing this update to the game soon, along with Chaos Trials and a LOT more.
    You mean if I leave enough I can get to bronze and then easily get the 2 matches I need for the chest? ;-)
  • Re: Can we get a little "taste" of what is coming in the next patch?

    I believe Robot honestly tried to make siege work, but the market isn't there for it to be profitable/cover costs.  So they switch to OMD3 which most of us, I think will enjoy greatly (even if we mourn the loss of siege, as I do).  With that said, survival grind is a very calculated thing as was clear from the crafting change when it got even worse, and Robot made adjustments when they realized their assumptions weren't implemented properly.  Robot would be incompetent if there isn't an economic model behind the grind.  In the same vein, when the new system comes out there will be a calculation for how much "survival gear" 100 hours of play time is supposed to buy.  Robot could grant us that easily, but apparently wants to give us only dyes.  I think there is a calculation about how many of us will come back and what that will be worth to Robot, forcing OMD's most consistent fans to grind all over again.  Reading things this way I am resentful at the lack of transparency/honesty I presume, even while I think Robot *should* understand how the economics of a great game will work out for them and us.  What I heard on the "Insider Access" about how it will all "magically work out" if the game is great made me feel like I was being lied to.  Robot has (or should have) calculated the economics of transferring our work to OMD3 would be.
  • Re: Refunds for non-Founders?

    Yes, I can't possibly complain about the $/hour, and the $->gold seems fair. The removal of siege for those that really liked it without compensation does seem icky. I too liked siege and was looking forward to improvements and a big population. If it's only ever been a handful of people then siege just failed. I'd hope that it would be possible to split the game if survival/siege interfered with each other, but I'm presuming the economics to support siege is just not their. :( The problem with the $/time equation is that time->stuff, achievement. And that's being taken away. So the work I did in game is being "stolen". There should be some compensation, probably in some unique vanities for that and for the rest of us that might go on once 1.4 (or 2.0) happens. It's not the money, it's the stuff. Start around 0:40 :)