Version 0.3.1 cannot change anything either

"

lei895947252#9364 wrote:

"

Satharune#4954 wrote:

When people fail they stop spending money and play other games. Creating a game with the goal of setting people up to fail is not a good business plan.

Ensuring all players achieve success is what ultimately stops them from spending. The "failure" you refer to means mechanics that guarantee absolute failure for all players. Having some players fail is an essential attribute of any game—creators simply need to provide ways to avoid that failure.

"

Aragorn#0353 wrote:

only gamebreaking mechanic i find is this freaking depressing juicing mechanic, why i am forced to watch grey map 24/7 if i wanna add such important mods as delirium to the map, either give us option to turn it off, add map skins for delirium where u can see colors (i dont mind paying) or add another mechanic that overrite delirium so i dont have to feel like i am missing out

"

avastcosmicarena#5899 wrote:

"

lei895947252#9364 wrote:

The root cause of the team dungeon-farming strategy that people often criticize still lies in insufficient monster difficulty—where a single player's damage output is enough to clear a 6-player map. This is flawed design. Doubling the base health of monsters outside story phases wouldn't even be excessive.

No, the root cause is the excessive rewards that teams get. The content will never be difficult because teams have massive advantages. One guy just CCs the monster. Another is just there to buff drops. Then you have a couple of damage dealers. It's simply always going to be way easier than one person trying to do the same content.

By the way, just making monsters damage sponges isn't good game design either. Most people don't like HP sponge bosses in most games, because it's the most boring and tedious way to try to do "difficulty" in a game.

"

Oinkaments#6390 wrote:

"

lei895947252#9364 wrote:

"

vexorian#9572 wrote:

0.3.1 is a minor version change.

Also, you may think that people that argued for chilled grounds to be alleviated are 'idiots' as per your inital post, but the reality is we should have to change gear, use specific nodes on the passive tree to avoid a map being playable. Especially when the nodes can be unaccessible for some.

Using a silver charm in my setup is an absolute no and I'd rather vendor those than play in a map 90% covered in shit stained ice that slows me.

The debuff is still there, it will simply cover less area than it previously did.

Increasing by 30% and decreasing by 30% in mathematical calculations are not the same concept. When we start reducing the value by "decreasing 30%," the initial gains are very substantial, so we only need to decrease it by a portion, and the impact of the remaining part can be ignored. When we disregard this affix, it becomes purely a beneficial affix,So it's ez.

"

lei895947252#9364 wrote:

Increasing by 30% and decreasing by 30% in mathematical calculations are not the same concept. When we start reducing the value by "decreasing 30%," the initial gains are very substantial, so we only need to decrease it by a portion, and the impact of the remaining part can be ignored. When we disregard this affix, it becomes purely a beneficial affix,So it's ez.

"

Oinkaments#6390 wrote:

"

lei895947252#9364 wrote:

Increasing by 30% and decreasing by 30% in mathematical calculations are not the same concept. When we start reducing the value by "decreasing 30%," the initial gains are very substantial, so we only need to decrease it by a portion, and the impact of the remaining part can be ignored. When we disregard this affix, it becomes purely a beneficial affix,So it's ez.

I recently completed an accounting certificate, I'm aware of the concept.

But they said 66%. So let's say the shit covers 80% of the screen.

It will mean : 0,8 * (1-0,66) = 27,2 % of the screen will still be covered with shit stained snow.

I think that's perfectly fine. And personally, I will still vendor those maps because I have zero desire to change important gear/nodes just to be able to farm a map when I can use plenty other maps.

"

lei895947252#9364 wrote:

A multiplayer online game must never try to let everyone "win." It is a competition

"

lei895947252#9364 wrote:

A multiplayer online game must never try to let everyone "win." It is a competition—some must triumph, and others must fail.

"

RipperCrock#4730 wrote:

"

lei895947252#9364 wrote:

A multiplayer online game must never try to let everyone "win." It is a competition—some must triumph, and others must fail.

This Quote alone makes me wonder why are you playing a totally non competitive game rather than playing the games which players genuinely compete against each other, or is that the currency gain you took it as a competition against the players who you never even interact with in game 99.99% of the time?