Heist Could Still Use Some Improvements

"

Pizzarugi wrote:

I like that rogues now have improved animation speed when given items which increase job speed, great for jobs that depend on it more than a progress bar. However, I feel like this activity needs a few more things to make it shine.

1. Improve door opening speeds, make it scale on rogue's job speed items. This doesn't include doors that open instantly such as the pipe doors in tunnels and laboratories during engineering heists.

2. Demolition "detonation" phase is wonky. In some small scenarios, a rogue will try and back up forever into a corner and not set off the bomb. The best way to fix this is to walk far enough away to make the rogue teleport to you, then you can try again and usually the bomb will detonate.

3. Rebalance the enemy stats. In my experience, the templar and bandit factions are grossly overtuned compared to the scientists and automatons. They can take a lot of damage and deal a ton back at you. The former two should be toned down.

"

ARealLifeCaribbeanPirate wrote:

I'm actively taking notes when I run Heists right now in prep for the Heist event (specific tilesets where Demo doesn't work, average number of doors, etc), so I know which jobs to avoid completely in the 17th-27th.

"

LethargicGirafe wrote:

I do agree that Templars and Bandits are overpowered...Only my high evade/speed builds can clear them effectively...but I feel like the rewards they guard are not worth my time. Trinkets don't have the weight they once did, because currency drops are not as good as when league was active....Currency stacks in blueprint rewards have always been cheap. Have had chaos at best, on rare occasion some delirium orbs and not even a good base type. (bad RNG?)

And I've yet to score an enchanted armament that I could build around.

If there is anything to improve, the two strongest enemy types should yield better rewards at the end of a blueprint.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

if im being honest i really dont like this content.

someone on here called it a door opening simulator lol, and to me that feels like a fair assessment of it. the more i play it the less i like it.

in my opinion the initial design didnt work, where killing the monsters increased ur alert, and now its this thing that was designed to be one thing, but now changed to be something else and imo so much of the design that is still baked into it doesnt make sense for what it is now, and what it is now doesnt make much sense as a concept in of itself, but it functions which the previous design didnt so its just been left as it is.


i think its pretty bad, i dont think anyone would design content like this, its just trying to make the best of the corpse of the first attempt in the time they had to fiddle with it.





if it were my game i would completely redesign it. the idea of building up alert from opening chest, but youve just killed 20 guards in this really noisy fashion? no one noticed that and none of them called for help or sounded an alarm, but now opening this box somehow raises an alert level?

it just doesnt make sense, and i find my interaction with the content is a lot of running through zones sort of zooming past mobs just getting it done to get reveals to get a blueprint ready to get that done just for a reward and the reward is cool if u reveal it all and get the max out of the chests in a smart way but the content itself is crap, in my opinion.

this and bestiary... theyre really rough, compared to say delve and incursion where i think the concepts worked how they were supposed to from the initial design. if were breaking in and making a ton of noise killing stuff shouldnt it just be designed around that? rather than still pretending were sneaking in while the play of it is running across a zone occasionally stopping to wait for doors to open. running = bad, waiting = bad, sneaking = bad, whats good in this arpg is killing things, actual combat content. if its not that just dont make it a large feature, running trap gauntlets = bad, netting beasts = bad, its a common theme.