[April 12] Initial Development Manifesto Feedback

"

PuppetYuber wrote:

"

iMbaQ wrote:

I would prefer if you made it client side with cheats accessible.

This PvP is very limited in this game, it is mostly PvE. I would understand why this would be required in a game like SC2.

It then should be done in a way you have implemented many ways to make calculations to detect cheats - and feed data back to yourself so that they can be investigated and banned. There are many things that can be implemented to check for hacks, I wouldn't even mind you making us install something in the background so that you can see any hacking going on.

Main thing is that, although the play is undisturbed as I am not requiring anything back from server for my gameplay to validate, data is still being fed to GGG of what is going on in my instance to make sure it is consistant to how it should play out - and anything out of realm of possibility is reported to GGG to validate if just a hiccup or actual hack.

Yes, this would allow people to cheat and there banning may not be instant. This will also mean a constant battle between developers and hackers (don't underestimate them) to outdo eachother.

Over time as long as bans do happen - I think it is the right way to go.

I just don't think a rubber banding experience is the way to go for an ARPG and frankly, after reading that, it almost made me look for other games to play instead :/. I would even say that I would prefer a delayed experience as long as it is consistent...

LOL..sorry I will take rubber-banding over hacks ANYDAY.

There are already ways around rubber-banding (macro /oos + alt-f4)

I honestly cant believe I just read that WTF ROFL

You just proved why my points are valid. /oos and alt f4? You can see why this is incentivising playing another game altogether.

Why does some individuals hacking (and eventually getting banned) affect you?

a) You may play a lot of PvP, it can be made that PvP matches are server based then
b) You worry about economy? We can make item drops remain server sided. If you are worried about economic effect due to people who hack taking advantage of drops - measures can be made server side which do not affect gameplay. Beside, you have multiclients already ruining economy so again, why do you care?

Others hacking and me having perfect gameplay > Me having crappy gameplay just so others can't hack (who don't affect me).

"

Moosifer wrote:

This thread is a mess, it's so hard to follow anything that remotely starts being a conversation. Can you just make threads underneath the main ones? When you revise them just delete the feedback thread and make a new one.

Wow. Yeah. When I first saw this thread, I thought it was just a general manifesto feedback thread. I was super surprised when I was in a specific manifesto and clicked the "to discuss this manifesto, click here" and brought to this thread.

This is, frankly, unacceptable. Having managed a community before (albeit for a short while before personal matters conflicted with my obligations, still enough time to learn some very important things!) the way you organize and control access and direction of communication is paramount to the feedback you will receive. This thread is so ill conceived, it trivializes the entire point of having a manifesto. If this is your only medium for the exchange of ideas and opinions, might as well just delete the whole sub forum and be done with it.

Being a bit dramatic of course ;) But it serves my point. This thread is shit. It will not provide any valuable feedback, because it will prevent any topic-related discussion and require too much personnel time to scan through and absorb any value from said disjointed feedback.

Please reconsider your implementation here. The manifesto would be better served if handled like the skill gem discussion threads. Allow discussion to remain, and add an admin message stating "Discussion after this post is relevant to the v0.10.xx patch." whenever any relevant changes are made.

"

iMbaQ wrote:

"

PuppetYuber wrote:

"

iMbaQ wrote:

I would prefer if you made it client side with cheats accessible.

This PvP is very limited in this game, it is mostly PvE. I would understand why this would be required in a game like SC2.

It then should be done in a way you have implemented many ways to make calculations to detect cheats - and feed data back to yourself so that they can be investigated and banned. There are many things that can be implemented to check for hacks, I wouldn't even mind you making us install something in the background so that you can see any hacking going on.

Main thing is that, although the play is undisturbed as I am not requiring anything back from server for my gameplay to validate, data is still being fed to GGG of what is going on in my instance to make sure it is consistant to how it should play out - and anything out of realm of possibility is reported to GGG to validate if just a hiccup or actual hack.

Yes, this would allow people to cheat and there banning may not be instant. This will also mean a constant battle between developers and hackers (don't underestimate them) to outdo eachother.

Over time as long as bans do happen - I think it is the right way to go.

I just don't think a rubber banding experience is the way to go for an ARPG and frankly, after reading that, it almost made me look for other games to play instead :/. I would even say that I would prefer a delayed experience as long as it is consistent...

LOL..sorry I will take rubber-banding over hacks ANYDAY.

There are already ways around rubber-banding (macro /oos + alt-f4)

I honestly cant believe I just read that WTF ROFL

You just proved why my points are valid. /oos and alt f4? You can see why this is incentivising playing another game altogether.

Why does some individuals hacking (and eventually getting banned) affect you?

a) You may play a lot of PvP, it can be made that PvP matches are server based then
b) You worry about economy? We can make item drops remain server sided. If you are worried about economic effect due to people who hack taking advantage of drops - measures can be made server side which do not affect gameplay. Beside, you have multiclients already ruining economy so again, why do you care?

Others hacking and me having perfect gameplay > Me having crappy gameplay just so others can't hack (who don't affect me).

I would like to point out that, firstly, I don't have the macro, neither will I use it. I have played the game long enough to know when I am desyncing, and how to avoid it (certain maps layout, skills and etc)

Anyways, to address your question

If PVP matches is server based then it still doesn't resolve the rubber-banding issue, which, in essence, is what you are trying to address. PVP, like all games, will inevitably be the end game content. When the time comes, are you suggesting client-side solution is still ideal? Wouldn't it better just to adapt to it or wait until GGG to optimize the problem?

How will item drops remain server side be a solution to that? People can run bots and just farm all day and ruin the economy. D3 is a perfect example of that, except POE is free, so in essence, there is no penalty in getting banned. It is nearly impossible to combat dedicated hackers while focusing on developing/polishing a game. Lets be real here.

I appreciate it a lot that we get so much dev response

and i want to say that i find the pvp plans great will add another scope of the game
i loved magic the gathering if that is meant with MTG


also i hope you guys find a solution for a survivability/defense mechanic for melee
and a solution to make melee destroy the monster rooms like rangeds do



about maps and progression this will be probably the most difficult part
because im not sure if just changing quantity into rarity will do it
also blizzard devs acknwoledged this and put up the idea to let rare stuff drop less often but have a higher chance to be useful or good i dont know if thats the best solution but probably a step in the ight direction away from the badlands of junk loot.

regarding solo play i think something about the drop chances rates rarity quantity whatever you call it have to be done when playing solo. some solution that turn out a party is still slightly better but not so much superior that it gets u frustrated at solo

i also saw you guys set a point on races but as far as i can see it doesnt turn the masses to do races i think its because of the trophy you can win.

the trophy of a race for first place have to be ultimate like a selfmade rare item with 6 mods you would like that are possible to roll.

and everybody would try to run for it because of the shiny trophy

"

Odoakar wrote:

The only thing I found questionable was claiming the loot drop situation is fine for solo players. It is not. It's actually horrible, with very few currency and uniques dropping, especially compared to party play.

I agree.
I'am playing solo only and this is pain to stack currencies/items...

"

m0juba wrote:

"

Odoakar wrote:

The only thing I found questionable was claiming the loot drop situation is fine for solo players. It is not. It's actually horrible, with very few currency and uniques dropping, especially compared to party play.

I agree.
I'am playing solo only and this is pain to stack currencies/items...

I agree too. Playing in a group means they all share the maps and can use the currency to reroll the maps. Playing solo means you have to do all that yourself. It's pretty hard to sustain yourself in group mapping and its almost impossible in solo mapping.

The problem is that MOBS become desynced, and players become desynced because they try to attack them. Resulting in players moving toward an unknown, dangerous room, resulting in possible death of characters.

This is probably one of the worst desync issues.

I think players would be willing to deal with Rubber-banding over the current problems.
A resynced, alive character is better than a dead desynced one.

Why don't you as developers do a test run? Patch the game, see how it goes for a while.
If players like it, keep it.
If they hate it, ask why? How can you improve it, fix it, tune it?

"

Anyways, to address your question

If PVP matches is server based then it still doesn't resolve the rubber-banding issue, which, in essence, is what you are trying to address. PVP, like all games, will inevitably be the end game content. When the time comes, are you suggesting client-side solution is still ideal? Wouldn't it better just to adapt to it or wait until GGG to optimize the problem?

How will item drops remain server side be a solution to that? People can run bots and just farm all day and ruin the economy. D3 is a perfect example of that, except POE is free, so in essence, there is no penalty in getting banned. It is nearly impossible to combat dedicated hackers while focusing on developing/polishing a game. Lets be real here.

I think you are taking the defeatist attitude which was probably the case in games 10-15 years ago. There are many systems GGG could use to make hacking possible but generally unviable. It doesn't all have to be this crazy uncontrollable hack fest that is being visioned by many here. It doesn't have to be that there are suddenly 20,000 bots which are hacking/mapping automatically getting masses of loots. Server checks can be continuously made, the change I am asking for is that server does not have to dictate our instanced actions itself, it is rather irrelevant and problematic for legit gamers.

As good as hackers are, I am sure there are equally skilled programmers who are able to think up very good solutions to such problems should things be moved to client side. I really hope we don't accept defeat to hackers.

Look at Aion, due to client side decisions, it is possible to hack certain things (like flying, attack speed etc), but people are getting banned for doing so at least and this is a very old game. I am sure if they in hindsight saw these hacks, could change certain things, they could have implemented even better checks in the game to make it so these people are more easily detectable and banned.

I do not want to accept that it is impossible to make it client sided without completely ruining the gaming experience.

As for the PvP issue, hopefully due to how small the instance is and how there are fewer things going on compared to say a 6 man map party, it shouldn't be as problematic as it is for PvE - BUT MAINLY, if you die in PvP due to desynch or what not, you lose a round. You don't lose 15% exp and you don't lose a HC character.

I hope that makes sense.

(I have played too many games where hacking was possible and I know the trials and tribulations companies have to go to sort it out. This LUCKILY is an action RPG (PvE mainly) and really making sure gameplay is smooth is more important than everything else. Diablo 2 had one of the BIGGEST issue ever, it had DUPING! I do not need to tell you how much that affects the economy but you know what, it was still possible to enjoy the game. So, as important as economy is, let's remember it won't ruin the game altogether). However, constant desynch/lag/rubberbanding CAN ruin the game altogether.

Since some of the developers from GGG worked on D2 (from what I have heard), I am sure they also evaluated their choices and decided to make POE server-sided. Most, if not all, of the points you have made are more or less subjective and perhaps selfish; similar counter arguments can be made from the other side of the spectrum (i.e., I stopped playing D2 because of the massive dupe/hack, ruined the game experience for me despite of how well the game ran at the time).

Lets just put faith on GGG to make server-side game work.

i think that "physical on-critical" effect should depend on weapon type, for example: Maces - stun, Swords/Bows/Daggers - pierce (foe drains % of life for N seconds, m.b. different variations for Bow/Daggers), Claws - extra (and instant?) life leech, Axes - wound (m.b. makes foe weak(makes % less dmg) and more vulnurable (gains % more dmg) for N seconds), and so on.)