Dev Unitas

Welcome home, BABs! Honored to have you with us. Hope we can do you and your old team's work the justice it deserves.

If those were ever used, they would never be as rewards for 4*. As it stands, I'd say it's highly unlikely they will ever be used, based on conversations I've had with the powers devs. Not speaking for them there, just my personal thinking.

It's not my content, but in the case of those three things, my understanding is that ITF has no special 'secret' fight, while the other two do. It's not 4* that gets you those rewards, its the special fights that are exclusive to 4* but not required. In other words, if something cool like that were added to ITF, it'd likely only happen if a new hidden encounter gets added to ITF.

Maybe we'll use it later on at some stage, but it was suggested!

They're pretty fun! Welcome to Fort Trident 🙂

Should be true of Ukon Grai! It's a change to the Colossal power and how it applies to Giant Monsters that have it. If you check the Giant Monster with a power analyzer (or the Entity search on CoD) and it's benefiting from Colossal, it is affected by this health scaling.

As someone else who plays on Everlasting predominantly, while that definitely does happen, it's not the only way it can happen, even in PUGs, and individuals in groups should encourage the selection of a specific tank, who players pay attention to the direction of. Regarding MMs on a more general level, I can't say anything regarding hypothetical changes to them because I'm simply not a Powers Dev, it's not the area I work in. I can say that we are aware of their particular set of issues, though.

Separately from the Lusca stuff I wanted to confirm that the damage ticks for the Pumpkin Patch will be getting a minor reduction for players and significant reduction for pets in an upcoming patch.

After assessing the power with my co-devs, I'd say Tentacle Smash is WAI in terms of how hard it's hitting and its general behaviour. In this case, the tank of the team should be facing the tentacles away, communicating that they're the tank, and people who are going to complain about group fly should have it disabled via Null (and that's their fault if they haven't). From what information you've given me there's also the possibility that the issues you're having are actually to do with Lusca's head shooting ink (which was retuned during the GM sweep), not the tentacles, could you clarify if that is being considered?

Tentacle Smash is a cone, so positioning your bots appropriately will generally be a core focus for fighting Lusca. If that's proving much too difficult I can take another look at her damage, but the Tentacle Smash is correctly following formula last time I checked.

Current solo difficulty across the board is WAI (unless there are some exceptions that are particularly easy to solo, still). Team testing was where we were lacking.

Is this in the context of team play, or attempts to solo her?

A good portion of the GM rebalancing was my work, including Eochai, and I'm sorry that people have been having a hard time in this case. While Pumpkin Patch existed before the rebalancing, it went through a number of iterations during beta, and unfortunately (but not unexpectedly due to the nature of beta testing open-world content) not enough testing was done on the final iteration for us to hear this particular feedback sooner. The power will be looked at. No promises regarding specific changes, but it'll be looked at and some minor adjustments will likely be made. In terms of where the new GM tuning is meant to sit, they're meant to have some teeth. A standard team shouldn't be surprised if ~1-3 players drop during the fight, depending on the GM. In this case, the patch is very lethal, yes, but it's also not particularly large. Recommended play to deal with it includes playing more spread out from your teammates to minimize losses. That said, I recognize the difficulties with Masterminds and other pet users. It will be taken into consideration.

Absolutely agree that it's a matter of opinion. Personally I've always adored Redside for its abundance of Arachnos (love the costume design for Arachnos on a primal level) and the interesting, unique tone the setting has. Can't say there's many video-game cities that replicate the feel of the Rogue Isles! That said, been enjoying this thread folks, thanks for the discussion so far. Mostly been expected sentiments, but definitely the sort of conversation worth having. As expected, people's perspectives on Redside and its flaws/lack thereof are often fairly opinionated (not in a negative way), quite diverse, but typically sharing certain similar talking points. Even as a fan of the Rogue Isles and the levelling experience to be had there, I can't say I'd even disagree with many of the gripes people lob at it. Even the distaste for the 'gloom', fair enough. Certainly not an atmosphere for everyone, and I don't think it really needs to be. Anyways, carry on! Just felt like musing since I haven't chimed in for... dang, 9 pages! Good stuff!

These are the exact sort of things to post in --> here <--- if it's a new bug to page 7, otherwise ---> here! <--- If the thread for them already exists, post your own information in that thread - if not, it's worth making a new one for each separate issue.

If you don't mind me asking, in your testing, what's the highest level of difficulty that you are finding feels comfortable on the Open beta with your current builds, and what do those builds currently look like? We have our own internal ideas for what should and shouldn't be doable at certain levels of build completion, so that'd legitimately be super helpful data for us. The more players give us data like that, the more we can cross-compare and assess if we're aiming too high, too low, etc.

Appreciative on the thorough effort here, thank you!

Since it hasn't been mentioned at all, I'd like to make a request for some targeted testing of Paladin and Adamastor's telegraphed attacks - specifically, could people test CC and other methods of interrupting said attacks, and seeing what happens?

(Excuse me for using your post as a bit of a springboard, I kinda go off on a ramble here because feedback and developer communication is an interesting topic to me and it's always late when I start typing these up so I'm at least a tad delirious) It's an unfortunate case that often (but not always) the circumstances that lead to players demanding answers the most are the ones it would be most beneficial to not respond to, from our perspective - because of at least one if not more of the various reasons I mentioned above in the (last) forum essay I dropped. It can legitimately be a combination of a whole array of reasons why we can't really dig into the meat of a change immediately, and to even just explain that in itself would be difficult sometimes. None of that is to say we can't do better, but such a thing is not straightforward and will never lead to perfect transparency. The same old issues will always spring up and people will always wonder why devs aren't giving us answers, and assuming that the devs don't read or take on feedback, regardless of how much better we do at the times we can. I will say, as well, let me assure people that nothing we do lacks significant deliberation, discussion and a healthy mix of forward and present thinking. Sometimes a change that might be bumpy now might be necessary for the future, but that doesn't mean we won't do our best to mitigate that - however, it's rare that we'll decide to give a temporary consolation in the interim, because those set false expectations. Sometimes, something just kinda has to suck for a little bit if we want something really cool later on. 'Just delay it and release it all at once' is an often-used answer to that, and it's great in theory but in terms of a development pipeline simply doesn't always work. Sometimes we'll decide that's the solution, it's actually more common than it appears to people who exclusively participate in Open Beta (and even Closed Beta) but it's not as simple a solution as it sounds every single time. All of this said, can we do better with communication? I won't beat around the bush. Yes, we can, sometimes. Is there anything players can do to help us with that, though? Yes, there actually is! So if people will allow grant me a moment to give some feedback of my own in the other direction, here's some tips from me for handling (and helping improve) dev/player communication from the player end: Try to approach us in good faith. Seriously. It's always easier to talk with people who aren't assuming the worst, or most cynical takes of us. I understand why that may not always be easy, or natural, especially when a change or feature may be upsetting, and you may see a pattern of those, but it is helpful. Bluntly, the more we can stomach reading your comments, the more we'll actually want to read them. You don't have to sugarcoat your opinions, I'm certainly not asking you to do that - we don't want Yes Men. If you hate something, we do want to know, and we want to know how much, and especially we want to know why. Just don't jump to conspiracy theories, please, and don't keep going on and on once you've made your point because you think we're ignoring you and you really really want us to notice. Typically we saw it the first time, we've taken note, we are already thinking about what to do about it and if we consider it a significant issue based on the data and feedback we've been provided. Opinion is good! Opinions + detailed and thorough testing results are amazing! Historically (not exclusively or even necessarily talking specifically about Homecoming) it's common for players to provide opinions and feedback on a situation or feature, failing to grasp the actual core of the issue. Where someone may talk about their hatred of a system, it may not actually be the system at fault but rather how it interacts with the things around it. Alternately, it might be a tiny micro-element of the system that is making the whole thing feel lousy, and that's being misattributed to the greater whole. Part of good game design is how you filter feedback and sort past the innate player bias (as opposed to the creator bias I mentioned in my last multi-paragraph forum essay) to find the details. If you want to help us do that, it's always more helpful to us if you provide the testing results you had alongside your opinions and feedback, so that we can look at the two side-by-side and compare them with our internal understanding of how a system or feature should be working. It also gives us a snapshot of you as a player, when it's compared to other data, and often becomes incredibly informative when viewed through that particular lens. Try to do your best to understand something's place in the larger picture when providing feedback. Thoughts on a feature/system in a bubble are well and good, but the best feedback takes into consideration the larger structure of the game, of the meta, of what issues the game currently faces, of its strengths, etc. Sounds easy right? A good example: Maybe a powerset drops and it's underpowered - but is it underpowered by your standards, or is it underpowered by the standards of the game? What do those two questions even mean to you specifically, and how do you define them? How would someone else define them? Thinking about how a variety of players of a variety of playstyles would engage with something and how it would feel for them specifically is quite tough, but is a powerful tool in providing feedback. These three 'little' things are just a few elements of what can help us parse information. They take some pretty hefty work, no denying that, but when they are put into play, you'll get way more mileage out of your feedback, and we will as well. As a result, it'll easier facilitate a two-way line of communication. We definitely take notice of people who give feedback like this, and the more effectively you do, the more likely we are to be able to engage with you and give you good answers of our own. Not to say all of the onus is on you as testers- part of our gig is to be able to interpret more casual feedback and run it through our understanding of the situation to find the problem at the heart of it, if there is one. Still, if people want to know how to get the most (ahem) Feedbang for their Feedbuck, I'd personally point to those three tips as a great starting point. Alright, time for me to go pass out now.

This is absolutely true, but most of the goal-based testing we do tends to be during the Closed Beta phase - not to say exclusively, but it's definitely something that you'll see more of during that time than during the Open Beta phase, I think.

Soooo this is going to be long, because like all things game dev, of course it can't be simple. Sometimes, for us, there is value to be had in testers being left in the dark, whether entirely or partially. Oftentimes an overlooked part of what design entails from a player perspective is, well, the player perspective itself. A new player to a feature isn't going to encounter a piece of content with a small blurb about our design philosophy and mantra on how we want players to engage with it. In my previous line of solo dev Stuff, there's a very commonly used term called 'creator bias' - a dev's perspective on content is often radically different from that of an average player, and that bias can be powerful and impossible to dispel without great effort (or a lack - a common strategy for those without good playtesters was simply to walk away for months after completing the draft of something before they came back to look it over). A good designer is aware of this bias and knows how to combat it, and often combating it involves not giving playtesters a lot of information, so that we can gather information ourselves on how players process our changes and content. While I'm not a powers dev, and I don't want to speak for them, from my perspective I can point to the whole recent 'Wet' discussion in the Arsenal Control as a perfect example of this. A dev often wants to see how players engage with a system or feature, on a philosophical or meta-defining level, not just whether they like it or not, or if they can find any bugs with it. Sometimes, watching people fumble about in the dark is actually the best data we can possibly obtain. From another perspective, sometimes we simply don't want to talk about something because it'd require talking about factors that are too early in development, or won't make it into the current patch cycle. In a volunteer dev space, the release date of things can be incredibly malleable - and not necessarily by choice. Last year we had an incredibly long gap between Page 6 and any word of Page 7 hitting Open Beta, and that's not because we were sitting on our laurels (as you can probably tell from the extremely long patch notes). Life is ultimately going to life, and that's going to set people's projects back regardless of their best intentions. From another another perspective, sometimes we don't talk about something because we're busy trying to fix the thing. Keeping up on the forums is hard, sometimes, especially on threads that are particularly active. We do our best to read everything, but there are only so many hours in the day, and when something critical needs addressing and we know it, usually those hours are better spent on the project than on forum communications. From another another another perspective (hoo boy), sometimes it's simple fact that if we explain ourselves, people won't like what we have to say. Not necessarily everyone - but it only takes a few people to take a controversial design philosophy or explanation and derail a feature's feedback thread into 30 pages of ranting. It's happened before and it will absolutely happen again. Those sorts of situations are helpful to nobody- changes of design philosophy are rarely influenced through the forums, or a discord channel, and certainly not overnight after a barrage of complaints. Design philosophy is something that usually changes and shifts gradually, and is more likely to happen via conversation with others with development experience sharing there wisdom in casual conversation (as opposed to writing out a screed of why they dislike a dev's attitude towards players). Meanwhile, those threads are often our most valuable point of feedback when used correctly, at least during the Open Beta part of the patch cycle. Aaaaaaanyways, that doesn't cover everything but I think it covers a fair few reasons why communication may be dodgy on one thing or another. All of that being said, I've been on the other end of limited communication and I understand how frustrating it is. Sometimes we can and should be doing better, and I won't deny that. But, most of the time, if we're not talking or not explaining things I can assure you there's a reason for it. You may not think it's a good reason, but there's usually a reason. We value the forums a lot, and we read them a lot (I open 'em first thing I do when I turn on my PC and immediately navigate to the Open Beta focused feedback threads to catch up). People are not being ignored unless they're actively disruptive, and feedback is almost always taken into some form of consideration. It's very late here, so apologies if any of that comes off as confusing, or doesn't convey the tone I'd like it to. Turned kinda rambly in the end, but oh well. Hopefully at least a little enlightening to someone.

You should be getting granted additional Exploration tips when picking up exploration badges, to serve as a guide to others in the zone.

Not for new folks. Faultline is specifically talking about existing players looking to get their suite of Passport badges quickly and easily. Trucker is simple for an experienced player, especially considering the new level 2 jetpack.

Still speaking purely personally, so don't take my word as gospel: Broadening level ranges of particular arcs is something I'd be interested in doing, but the amount of work involved differs case-by-case, as the level ranges of arcs are often at least in part connected to the level ranges of the enemy types within. Many arcs would require expanding or adjusting the level ranges of the critter groups in them, or changing what type of enemies spawn here or there or what have you. Can get very messy very quickly in certain circumstances. I haven't gone looking, but I imagine Praetoria would be filled with examples of those messy situations. If we were to expand level ranges, it probably wouldn't be anything more than 5-10 levels for any individual arc, I'd guess. To simplify: I'unno, maybe, could hypothetically happen, we've talked about the overlevelling conundrum on a broader scale in the past. I find it particularly annoying myself. Definitely no promises or things to announce today!

Quite controversial, and a decent amount of work that could be going into other projects with wider reach. The way I personally see it, the value of Praetoria is as an alternate levelling experience for seasoned players with at least a rudimentary lore understanding. It provides some additional spice when the blue and redside levelling experience from 1-30 has grown stale. So it makes sense that, in being directed at that crowd, it is tuned more appropriately for their general level of skill. That's, again, my personal opinion though, not explicitly that of the team.