The things you hated the most about the Game/Design - POLL

"

Gimatria#7361 wrote:

I appreciate the effort and I've done the poll. But I wouldn't hold my hopes up that GGG will do anything with it, because the information is completely useless.

Well i think it can be at least an indicator and maybe they will do a real poll at some point themselves.

Also they probably have game-metrics so they can for example look at how ppl play and get some additional unbiased data to compare aswell - for example - how long do ppl explore different maps (i for example spend way more time on maps i like than on maps i dont like), which endgame things do ppl do often. Do they use storage a lot in trials, they can even look at groups and compare deaths etc. to different group sizes and so on.

Since the game is running on their servers they probably have all the data they need.

You should put *Capaign* in your title. The Acts are well done. The major issues don't become apparent until end game.

Weird to interject your own poll responses to match your opinion. Very weird poll dude. Its manipulative.

"

KraniumKrusher#3304 wrote:

You should put *Capaign* in your title. The Acts are well done. The major issues don't become apparent until end game.

Yeah - the reason for that is simple - im not even at the endgame yet.

The only thing that I dislike from a design (?) decision [poor implementation?] is that visual and audio clarity of some queues aren't as good as they should be.

Many times, against early campaign bosses, there is at least decent audio and visual queues for the boss's signature skills.

Against rares and against some other bosses though, esp. late in campaign and post campaign sometimes tells for dodge-or-die mechanics are very poorly displayed esp. when there are high effect counts on screen / lots of overlapping audio.

IMHO signature, hard hitting skills, need both a highly visible audio AND visual queue of what's going on. These queues need to have top priority in terms of visibility [and audibility?] and should never be drowned out by any other effects.

"

KingAlamar#4071 wrote:

The only thing that I dislike from a design (?) decision [poor implementation?] is that visual and audio clarity of some queues aren't as good as they should be.

Many times, against early campaign bosses, there is at least decent audio and visual queues for the boss's signature skills.

Against rares and against some other bosses though, esp. late in campaign and post campaign sometimes tells for dodge-or-die mechanics are very poorly displayed esp. when there are high effect counts on screen / lots of overlapping audio.

IMHO signature, hard hitting skills, need both a highly visible audio AND visual queue of what's going on. These queues need to have top priority in terms of visibility [and audibility?] and should never be drowned out by any other effects.

I agree completely forgot about that.

Especially in bigger groups depending on others skills visibility is sometimes almost zero - i often dont even know where the boss is in such instances. Maybe some Outlines etc. would be an idea.

I think the other thing would be made way better with a bigger zoomout. Especially when playing ranged i often notice that im too far away to see the indicators for a big attack yet am still in range.

Other things in general need better indicators - for example skills that let rocks fall from the ceiling - the "dirt-dust" effect is almost invisible even when there are no other effects on the floor.


But i do like the flashy graphics so i hope they find a solution that lets us have both - better visible clearity and great effects.

For now something that helps me a lot is health-bars on enemies.

"

_N0ctus_#6387 wrote:

"

Gimatria#7361 wrote:

I appreciate the effort and I've done the poll. But I wouldn't hold my hopes up that GGG will do anything with it, because the information is completely useless.

Well i think it can be at least an indicator and maybe they will do a real poll at some point themselves.

Also they probably have game-metrics so they can for example look at how ppl play and get some additional unbiased data to compare aswell - for example - how long do ppl explore different maps (i for example spend way more time on maps i like than on maps i dont like), which endgame things do ppl do often. Do they use storage a lot in trials, they can even look at groups and compare deaths etc. to different group sizes and so on.

Since the game is running on their servers they probably have all the data they need.

The best way to gain information about the maps is to ask a simple question after each finished map: "did you like this map?" with an upvote or a downvote. Combined with all the data the gather they should be able to get all the information they need.

"

Gimatria#7361 wrote:

"

_N0ctus_#6387 wrote:

"

Gimatria#7361 wrote:

I appreciate the effort and I've done the poll. But I wouldn't hold my hopes up that GGG will do anything with it, because the information is completely useless.

Well i think it can be at least an indicator and maybe they will do a real poll at some point themselves.

Also they probably have game-metrics so they can for example look at how ppl play and get some additional unbiased data to compare aswell - for example - how long do ppl explore different maps (i for example spend way more time on maps i like than on maps i dont like), which endgame things do ppl do often. Do they use storage a lot in trials, they can even look at groups and compare deaths etc. to different group sizes and so on.

Since the game is running on their servers they probably have all the data they need.

The best way to gain information about the maps is to ask a simple question after each finished map: "did you like this map?" with an upvote or a downvote. Combined with all the data the gather they should be able to get all the information they need.

Well - to be honest i seriously wondered why they didnt implement such things in EA. They could gain a lot of data to improve the game that way.

I also was rather confused that they dont even have an ingame bug-reporting tool.

Updated Results 95 Participants.