Feedback Goal Give console players the option to use what input device they want to use. Keyboard and Mouse or controller.
Feedback Functionality Keyboard and mouse is already used on PC and some players use controllers on PC as well. I enjoy using a keyboard and mouse for playing NW on PC. I like most other players would enjoy it as well and have asked for it.
Risks & Concerns Matching KBM and controllers during PvP. I can hear the out cry now KBM has the advantage. But in PVE it shouldn't matter. You can do what Fortnite does and match input device with input device. Or If someone is playing with friends using different input devices have separate lobbies for them as well.
You can already use keyboard and mouse on Xbox IIRC.
@milehighxr#1299 before mod 16 comps certainly were a big deal. they just shifted from being power only to being a complicated mix of stats. but in order to be bis and top of your game you needed a maxed out pet and enchants. pre 16. the focus on pets has been there for at least a few years now.
there is definitely not enough training on how stats work, how comps work etc in the game though. and consoles have no preview server. a individual area where you could try on any gear at any level and see the difference with logs on console would be very nice for people to see how things effect game play.
I feel like comps are a much bigger deal no than pre mod 16. Maybe it's just my play style, or maybe it's because I maxed out 6 comps for the stats that matter for my pally for group content as soon as mod 16 dropped. Pre mod 16 I was using the comps I wanted to use, now I'm using comps based on stats required for specific content, and the power bonuses I have been forced to use due to mod 16.
Comps are a much bigger expense overall now than before but the importance of them is the same.
If you were picking a comp pre-mod 16 based solely off "this looks cool" than you weren't using the BiS comp. It would change periodically and everyone would run the same just like now (fire archons, sellswords, chultan tigers, etc for example).
So you still have the option to underperform now by choosing any non-BiS companion you choose to run. Nothing has changed in regards to people choosing BiS comps. We've been doing it for years.
From what i've saw, all the new players lacks of learning in mechanics of game. One of the problems is the velocity of levelling to reach lv 80, when you create a new character all this 80 level sounds like a tutorial for the real game (but it fail in this mission).
I suggest to slow down the experience acquired, this force the players to obtain some skill on his character during play time and, by side effect, automatically revamp all the old items and workshop. With a change like that maybe is possible to shift some old campaing to a low level (dread ring and sharandar for example).
By the other side a seasoned player that create a new character can use the knox reclutament token and skip all of this (maybe with lv 80 and all low level campaing completed)
I want to take a second and say that I'm excited about this forum, and the new involvement of a person whose work I've enjoyed. I love this game, and my experiences with it have been overwhelmingly positive.
Feedback Overview : Improved, updated, specific, and accurate descriptions of zen store items.
Feedback Goal: It will allow buyers to have a better idea of what they are purchasing, and help them to make better choices.
Feedback Functionality: The most recent example was the Hell Pit Event Buyout and the Partial Buyout. The forums are littered with the fallout from miscommunication. Folks didn't understand what they were buying, or the consequences of buying early. This should have been made crystal clear in the description, but it wasn't. It was quite logical to believe, for example, that if you purchased the Hell Pit Event Buyout and the Partial Buyout you would get two completion tokens. You didn't. Folks are left to wonder if all of this currency will be used throughout the year in special pit events, or whether it was a one time deal and they might have lost out at buying from the right vendor. The time or event sensitive nature of the currency should be extremely explicit in the description. This would not eliminate all possible reasons for miscommunication, but it would help quite a bit with customer satisfaction if it was clear that the problem was on our end because your descriptions were explicit and accurate. In addition, if an item is account bound or available to be claimed by only one character on an account that information should be big and bold. It is confusing when early packs involved mounts that are claimable by every character on an account (which is a HUGE selling point), and the later packs that have included one mount for one character on an account (much less attractive). I remember this being stated in the description, but it was easy to miss and I heard a lot of disappointment from folks in the degradation of the value of packs and the lack of understanding that their new mount would be for only one character. This could have been avoided with a very clear description.
Risks & Concerns : Honestly, I don't imagine any risk or concerns for the company if they hire a writer to go through and validate that these descriptions actually identify exactly what someone will receive, and that they are specific enough to give players an accurate idea of what they are purchasing and what will happen next. If part of the purchase is broken (as tattoos were for certain Drow for awhile or it will lock someone out of an event like with Hell Pit) then that kind of thing should be noted as a current issue with the purchase.
I think the risk and concern is if this *doesn't* happen. Folks that make frequent zen purchases, like myself, can feel a bit burnt when they receive something different than expected. Sometimes the fault lies with us, but we need a fair shot at knowing what we are purchasing. A clear and updated description goes a looooong way.
Decrease the portion of total stats that are recieved from companions/bondings.
Feedback Goal:
Allowing easier catch up for new players and simplifying the gearing process.
Feedback Functionality:
Currenty the catch up gear available from the campaigns don't serve their purpose because a large majority of stats needed for content come from companions. If the stats from the companions were reduced to 10% of a players total stats, that would not only make catch up gear more useful but also make balancing stats for the content a lot less frustrating of an experience.
If that is achieved trough reduction in total stats, the content would have to be balanced accordingly.
Risks & Concerns:
This would be a fairly big change in regards to companions and usually there is some well placed lashback when that's done without enough testing.
Mmm, that's a tough one as its something the game has actively monetized. Saying that someone's $100 bucks is now worth $1 is a hard pill to swallow for the player base. Do you remember when Chult/Soshenstar came out and increased the Enchant ranks? That did a similar thing and I know in my small guild we had people quit the game due to it.
However it is still a good idea. It just needs to be approached differently...
I feel a more diplomatic solution is to increase the methods players can get and improve companions/bondings. That way new guys get a hand up while older players with maxed companions and companion items don't really feel a "sting" since they aren't losing stats.
Create a Common Currency and a trader for it. Feedback Goal
The best way to always have the latest campaign currency on hand (alphastream's suggestion), consolidate dungeon keys (from dominous12), and to remove the "wasted time" of grinding outdated legacy gear (from wilbur626) is to add a Common Currency. It will clean up the inventory for veterans, keep any content relevant for play, and help new comers work towards stuff they need - rather than just for campaign boons.
Feedback Functionality
All zone credits can be traded at the trader for "Commons" (I'm sure you'll think up of a better name) at various degrees - you'll need a lot more Blacklake currency to buy one "Common Coin" in comparison to trading Black Ice, Chult totems or Guild marks for example.
Common Coins will then be used as the main trading currency for gear, such as consolidated dungeon keys or non-outdated gear. Or hey, maybe even outdated gear at a lower price because some people love transmutes - especially the RP crowd up in the Moonstone Mask. Maybe this Common vendor also sells Stronhold vouchers (lets lower level folk help develop stronghold - another alphastream suggestion), companion and companion buffs (alleviates cilginordek's post re: companions), enchantments, and seals?
Risks & Concerns
A similar but smaller scale event frequently happens with Seals already so we know it's possible. Just note that this trader will need to be updated semi-regularly (at least per mod) for currency exchange rates.
Side Note: I had thought of a "nuclear" approach too, where all zones lose their individual currency and reward "Commons" directly but that's a bad idea as zone currencies tie into things like campaign progression. A change like that's going to be a massive amount of work, and one I cannot recommend. The above method will be more than adequate.
Feedback Overview: We need epic and normal or master and apprentice versions of the newest dungeons and trials that come out. It wouldn’t be a problem if the lower difficulty versions are discontinued a few mods later, but it is inconsiderate to most of the player base to not include a lesser difficulty version of the newer contents, not for the rewards, but for the experience. There should be a noticeable difference in the rewards, of course, as the lesser version is meant more for fun and practice.
Feedback Goal: A new mod raises the level of gear requirements, but not all players are geared equally. Everybody wants to run the newest content, because that’s where the fun is, but they are usually hindered by their current gear level. The most difficult part of running higher gear required content like TOMM is finding the players that are geared for it. The epic version is great for the serious players all jacked up with the BIS gear, but it would be better if there was also a normal version that we could run with our friends and community members that are not as geared, after all, everyone is equally excited and eager to run the new content. A challenge is always appreciated, but sometimes we want to run something for fun, cause “it ain’t fun if the homies can’t have none”.
Feedback Functionality: If we take LOMM and TOMM as examples of difficulty levels for future content, I would say we need a Master version (more difficult) for LOMM and a Normal version (less difficult) of TOMM. The level of difficulty IMO is indicated by the amount of HP, Damage, and Defense the NPCs have. There would be no need to change the mechanics or how anything else works, only the amount of HP, Damage, and Defense the ads and bosses contain and the rewards available for completing the run. And as far as the rewards go for the normal version, they can basically have the same contents as CODG since the normal version would mostly be for fun and practice.
Risks and Concerns: Normal and Epic versions are something we’ve had in the past and it has worked out, so I can’t think of any risks. As for concerns, the major one is rewards. After all, what makes a dungeon re-playable is if the rewards are worth farming for. What makes a reward worth farming is if we can sell it in the auction house for a decent amount of AD, I’d say a decent amount for the current market is at least 100,000 AD. The biggest difference between the normal and epic version should be that the epic version drops rewards that are “Bind on Equip” so we can have something to sell in the auction house. One of the rewards that would be worth farming even several mods later are the Mark of Potency ranks 6 and 7, more so the rank 6 than the rank 7. We already have many ways to farm the Enhancing stones ranks 5 and 6 so we will most likely roll past those in search of better rewards. New artifacts are also a good reward, but that all depends on the stats and effects. I can’t think of specific effects, but generally a buff/debuff to damage dealt does the trick. And as for stats, we’re always looking for more Power, HP, and combat advantage since those are the hardest to cap.
There are a few big problems with content accessibility. For clarity I'll break down what I consider the top 3.
Paragon Path/Role Balance
All paragon paths should be equally capable of performing their roles. Mod 16 playtester feedback combined with some poor feat/mechanic/power design led to a balance favoring classes that don't have a secondary role paragon path as the best DPS classes. Since roles require a very different gearing investment the consideration of the 5 classes capable of fulfilling 2 roles should not be a consideration,
Feedback Overview: Balance all DPS paragon paths.
Feedback Goal: All DPS paths, not just the "pure" DPS paths are equally viable in all content.
Feedback Functionality: Previous changes left classes such as Fighter, Barbarian, Cleric and Warlock with underperforming DPS paths and is the #1 obstacle to player inclusion and content accessibility for players wishing to use unpopular paragon paths. This above all else has to be addressed if you want to increase content accessibility.
Risks & Concerns: None, aside from those same advocates for "pure DPS classes to be better DPS than hybrid classes" complaining over a lack of a secondary role and perceived feeling of disadvantage in finding dungeon groups.
Legacy Campaign Timegates
Feedback Overview: Remove timegates on legacy (lvl60-80 campaigns) to decrease the time it takes for a new player to earn boons on trivialized content. Added benefit - helps smaller guilds level up strongholds easier.
Feedback Goal: Get more new players truly ready for endgame.
Feedback Functionality: For older campaigns such as Feywild, Tyranny, Dread Ring, and Icewind Dale remove daily quest limits, allowing quests to be picked up and completed back to back for older campaigns. Leave weekly quests at 1x per week. For newer campaigns with the weekly limits leave weekly quests as is and remove weekly currency limits.
Risks & Concerns: Honestly don't see a downside - the campaigns are outdated, rewards mostly useless, but newbies need the boons to round out their builds. Keys left at 1 per 20 hours keeps the dungeon rewards where they are at. Will reduce small guild dependence on Siege events to make progress with members still working on the campaigns.
Scaling and % damage increase equip bonuses.
Feedback Overview: Adding scaling to the game in the manner it was added created a situation where drastically older gear NEVER really gets outdated. With % damage increase bonuses this effect is magnified. Either fix scaling so that the enemies scale up to players, not players down to enemies, or remove it.
Feedback Goal: Give us a reason to get new gear.
Feedback Functionality: Revamp or remove scaling. Phase out % damage bonuses or release updated versions with new modules to reintroduce gear chase.
Risks & Concerns: Biggest risk is alienating the playerbase by making the wrong move.
I want to take a second and say that I'm excited about this forum, and the new involvement of a person whose work I've enjoyed. I love this game, and my experiences with it have been overwhelmingly positive.
Feedback Overview : Improved, updated, specific, and accurate descriptions of zen store items.
Feedback Goal: It will allow buyers to have a better idea of what they are purchasing, and help them to make better choices.
Feedback Functionality: The most recent example was the Hell Pit Event Buyout and the Partial Buyout. The forums are littered with the fallout from miscommunication. Folks didn't understand what they were buying, or the consequences of buying early. This should have been made crystal clear in the description, but it wasn't. It was quite logical to believe, for example, that if you purchased the Hell Pit Event Buyout and the Partial Buyout you would get two completion tokens. You didn't. Folks are left to wonder if all of this currency will be used throughout the year in special pit events, or whether it was a one time deal and they might have lost out at buying from the right vendor. The time or event sensitive nature of the currency should be extremely explicit in the description. This would not eliminate all possible reasons for miscommunication, but it would help quite a bit with customer satisfaction if it was clear that the problem was on our end because your descriptions were explicit and accurate. In addition, if an item is account bound or available to be claimed by only one character on an account that information should be big and bold. It is confusing when early packs involved mounts that are claimable by every character on an account (which is a HUGE selling point), and the later packs that have included one mount for one character on an account (much less attractive). I remember this being stated in the description, but it was easy to miss and I heard a lot of disappointment from folks in the degradation of the value of packs and the lack of understanding that their new mount would be for only one character. This could have been avoided with a very clear description.
Risks & Concerns : Honestly, I don't imagine any risk or concerns for the company if they hire a writer to go through and validate that these descriptions actually identify exactly what someone will receive, and that they are specific enough to give players an accurate idea of what they are purchasing and what will happen next. If part of the purchase is broken (as tattoos were for certain Drow for awhile or it will lock someone out of an event like with Hell Pit) then that kind of thing should be noted as a current issue with the purchase.
I think the risk and concern is if this *doesn't* happen. Folks that make frequent zen purchases, like myself, can feel a bit burnt when they receive something different than expected. Sometimes the fault lies with us, but we need a fair shot at knowing what we are purchasing. A clear and updated description goes a looooong way.
This game has major issues with providing half true statements or misrepresentation in their tooltip. I must say, other than their pretense over class balance, this is the second most hated thing about this game for me. Alas, there are more positives, hence why i keep playing it.
The game is balanced only for medium-strong characters and above. Which cuts off all the poor from the new content / cannot devote much time to the game / beginners. It’s hard to even imagine how stupid this approach is, and that such an approach to creating content just does exist in 2019. The community is even worse, it constantly and everywhere for groups requires an overestimated character strength, but they can be understood, given the approach of developers - to balance content only for strong characters. In other games, only a very small part of the content is intended for extremely strong characters, in this - all relevant dungeons. All random queues are tied to whether you come across easy activity or not, they still have to be opened long and hard, or just do not let it go - this is a very strange mechanic, which in theory should allow beginners to catch up, but in reality only limits them and spoils the game . And if you get "bad" activity you just need to leave the dungeon - you haven’t seen this in any game. In other games, if the activity of a random queue is complicated, buffs work to compensate for this, so that a person can go through new content and not feel like a stranger at a holiday. In the game, just do not understand what and why the character. What characteristics should he download to be useful in dungeons. Which of the uninteresting weak few useful talents to choose. Which satellite is better. What set of mounts and their signs are needed. Etc. A beginner should come into the game as an expert in game mechanics. Example: An Orkus set is stronger than top-end actual things, this is stupid in the first place because it bothers to wear the same things for years, and in the second it is not obvious.
Feedback Goal Make MW a functional part of the game again.
Feedback Functionality 1) Provide the ability to make additional items that augment or replace the current equipment similarly to the original MW items did. This could be done by providing new MW levels or additional MW recipes that are earned like the Chult recipes.
2) This would provide incentive for players to continue to make AD to purchase the items as they would likely be BIS.
3) Show those that had previously made the investment of time/money/AD into MW feel like what they did was worth something and not a waste of resources. The current professions can make items as good as or better than the original MW could.
Risks & Concerns How to properly align this into the current professions system so that it doesn't create gaps but a smother progression that gets harder to achieve too quickly (like MW 5 to MW 6 is a 10x effort/expense). This might not be for all players, but if done right, the results would get attention from those that are looking to keep BIS equipment like it did previously.
I agree, MW must have a minimally higher item craft than BIS, even if it is a 5% increase in status, and the difficulty of doing so must be high with high MW requirements and required items. Also some BIS + specific items could be implemented which could give 7% more status for example but they would be tied to the account so there are slightly higher BIS equipments that highlight the advantage of being a MW, this would apply in all the professions until even in alchemical potions that would give 7% more status but linked to the account. NOTE: These percentage values are just examples.
Since Mod 16, the counter stat system has pretty much centralized the game. Balanced or not, this is the direction that the dev team wants to take moving forwards.
The main problem with the system is that the counter stat system is barely explained in game, does not list enemy counter stats anywhere, and is overwhelming for new players.
Take for example, Critical Strike. New players might want to find what their Critical Hit chance would be, but are instead presented with only the "Critical Strike" stat. Nowhere in game does the game state that players must "take their Critical Strike stat, subtract it from enemy Critical Avoidance, then take that difference and divide it by 1000 to get your Critical Hit %".
Even if the player finds out how the system works, the actual enemy counter stat amounts aren't given in game, and if they are, it's easy to miss. The only source of enemy counter stats in game is in the queue window for dungeons/raids, which lists what enemy counter stats for that dungeon/raid, but not for anywhere else. In addition, the text is small and very easy to miss if one is in a rush.
This lack of information in gamehas led to a few Reddit threads cropping up about new players who suddenly are dealing no damage while leveling, but not understanding why. While there was that Mod 16 blog on how counter stats work, not every player reads the blogs/forum posts/knows where to consult outside information.
With that in mind, my proposed feedback attempts to solve these issues by placing the information in game.
Goal
An in-game explanation on how counter stats work.
An in-game training area that can be used to test various counter stats.
Players can look up counter stats in game.
New players aren't confused with "stat gymnastics" and generally get a sense of what their performance is relative to the zone.
Functionality
Add a training area where enemies/NPCs will have different counter stat amounts and do different actions so that players can try different counter stats.
An example would be an enemy that deals fixed damage to players and has 10,000 counter stats (this enemy would allow players test Defense or Deflect). Another example would be an allied NPC with varying percentages of health that can be used to have healers test how their heals work relative to Crit/Power.
In this training hub, have an NPC give an explanation on how counter stats work (the formula, specifically). Also have this NPC grant level 1 rings/items with varying stats (ex: one with +2000 ArmorPen) so that players without lots of gear can "try" working around various counter stats versus the enemies in the training area.
Have Knox give a quest that asks you to go to this training area and learn how counter stats work, with quest objectives being to talk to the NPC about learning the explanation of counter stats as well as a practical demonstration in fighting NPCs with varying stats.
For the practical training, a quest objective could be to first spar with Knox when Knox has 15,000 Defense. After the spar, have Knox remark on the player dealing less damage due to Defense. Then have Knox hand out a temporary ring with 15,000 ArmorPen, then have the player spar with Knox again. After the spar, have Knox remark on having increased ArmorPen relative to Defense (" notice that your attacks dealt more damage when they penetrated through my armor"), which would help emphasize to new players "raise your ArmorPen to equal enemy Defense".
Add a NPC/book/library in each zone that talks about monster counter stats. Justify it in universe as a bestiary or experienced hunter of enemies in the zone.
Make it so the Player stats tab has a simple to read section that shows player stats is adjusted for enemy counter stats in that zone, with stats such as "% of Enemy Armor Penetrated in Area" or "Critical Hit chance in this area".
Alternatively, have an NPC look the player's stats relative to enemy counter stats, then give advice relative to where they're lacking. For example, if the player is short of 7000 ArmorPen relative to enemy counter stats, have the NPC mention something about raising ArmorPen (something such as "raise your ability to penetrate enemy armor with magic items").
Risks/Concerns
Giving out the counter stat formula too early will scare new players.
Players will skip past the book/NPC which talks about enemy counter stats.
Should enemy counter stats be updated, the book/NPC giving out enemy counter stats will not be updated to match
The items granted in the training area end up being used in builds due to their stat amounts, rather than as a mere training/testing items (there was one time where the 1000 training weapons ended up being better than a real TR offhand).
Localization issues.
Programming time/development of the training area+associated quests/functionalities might take too much time out of the next module(s).
This function seems very pertinent to me, I would like it to be well explored, they could add an option to intrude on the enemies, the distance of up to 100 out of combat, opening a sequence of actions that could be explored later and one of them could be to visualize the This enemy's stats, HP, Def, ArmP, everything in the enemy, even a magnified recharge time skills tab, and anything that could be reported as well as a companion's ability skill (though companions don't specify your damage, something missing in my opinion). That way it would be more immercive making less generic enemies. In addition, I could add a bestiary tab or something similar, which would add the list of enemies on the actual page of the weigh-in, which would add the enemy to it after killing 1 of that enemy or even inspecting. NOTE: Add to this a counter of hunted enemy numbers, bringing a reward for each X number of hunted enemies, could be a symbolic amount of already refined AD based on enemy level, nothing that can become a kind of farms, but something that significantly rewards adventurers.
First of all, we at Alquimistas Guild would like to thank on behalf of all Brazilian Neverwinter players for the opportunity to exchange ideas that can be used in the future of this game we love so much. We constantly talk about possible improvements that could come into play, and I will bring some of these ideas to you as well as possible.
Feedback Overview: There are so many ideas in my mind, but one that always comes first to me are ways to revive the old campaigns. Neveriwnter is very rich in content, its campaigns and stories, something that went unnoticed as most campaigns make it boring for many, having campaign currency limits and daily and weekly issues makes it a lament for the gamer, campaigns like Tyranny of Dragons and Storm King thunder become infinite and all of them basically bring 1 interesting key and boon points, making it all a must. I know this could probably help sell already completed campaigns, but it can all be reviewed, so that the campaigns become lighter and make them easier options for beginners, also bringing opportunities for end game players to retracting legacy campaigns more dynamically, legacy campaigns was a great idea, but still not enough to take away that "boring thing I have to go back to that campaign just to get the Legacy coins".
Feedback Goal: Bringing in a system that can accelerate the start of campaigners a little and that can spontaneously attract veterans to return to old campaigns, interrelating novices and veterans by encouraging them to play together or at least on the same map by drawing the desert feel that newbies have when playing on some maps.
Feedback Functionality: - Bring a more versatile campaign medal exchange, making daily quests and weeks an already refined AD farm form, even in small amounts that benefits beginners and veterans alike. -Fold the Campaigns weekly coin cap, and for campaigns that don't have a coin cap, make the daily quests double the coin. - Place within the Campaign Exchange a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 exchange between other campaign currencies according to the difficulty of the coin drop and their need for campaign advancement, so the player could conclude Part of a Tyranny of Dragons Making Ravenloft Coins, you still need to do Tyranny of Dragons quests and the exchange would have daily or weekly limits. - You could add an exchange store access token from each map. Ex: after doing X Tyranny of Dragons quest numbers I gain 1 Token of access to this campaign currency trader, so I can make 1 exchange of up to X coins from other campaigns for Tyranny of Dragons. - For Veterans this Token would also give mercant access but they will focus on the second tab of the store for items such as 8, 9 or 10 enchantments, wards, mark of potency, enchanting up to rank 5, buff potion and even AD itself Refined.
Risks/Concerns: Veteran players may want to make this type of farm their primary, and novice players may be confused as to the proper targeting of goat coins. For that I have 3 pertinent observations for possible solutions.
-OBS 1:
Exchange's second tab would only release to newcomers after campaign completion, thus bringing one more benefit to their conclusion, and a continuing benefit unlike single reward boons and preventing newbies from thinking of getting items before to complete the campaign. For those who buy the campaign will need an access lock to this second store in addition to the need to release the access token, this second lock will only allow access to this store after filling the token bar twice, if the exchange is weekly , and 10 times if the exchange is daily
-OBS 2:
The exchange must have a daily or weekly limit to prevent this farm form from becoming primary. This bar would be in the layout of the campaign itself as the weekly coin accumulation bar, but it would count the number of questions completed.
-OBS 3:
After the player completes a status reduction would be applied to him, making him weaker than normal for that map, but stronger than any beginner, this would reduce the very high discrepancy between novice and veteran leaving the farm still challenging. for the veterans, not reducing the novice experience that will still see the veteran as such.
To avoid having new players farming for and upgrading gear that is 100% useless when they hit max level. Currently 55 of the 62 artifacts in collections are close to (most 100%) useless when you hit level 80. This also goes for sub level 80 epic armor and weapons ofc.
Feedback Functionality
New players should be informed of this, items should be removed from the game OR items should be upgradeable to "endgame" level.
Risks & Concerns
The only risk is that RP sales will go down a bit. I think thats better than having players leave when they realize they wasted AD/ZEN/£ on useless items,
Color-blind players need to be able to change colors in games, particularly where red = bad, green = good.
Feedback Functionality
My husband is color-blind. He has had a great deal of trouble in the past, particularly with seeing red splats on the ground when the ground is a green shade. I believe the biggest issue he had with it was back in Mod 4 & 5, when the dragon in Ebon Downs does their powers, but there have been several times since then. I think adding a color wheel or something similar would benefit color-blind players, regardless of which form of the color-blindness the player has.
Risks & Concerns
I can't really think of many risks to adding a color-wheel or similar method to change game colors on the screen, but I'm open to feedback. I wasn't really sure if this was appropriate feedback for this discussion, but since accessibility was mentioned, I felt it was worth mentioning.
Being color-blind myself, I agree with this entirely. Thank you, @kreatyve for bringing this up! For me personally, LoMM and the fight with Acturia (sp?) is rough. I have to ask someone to point out which corner to cover since I have a hard time with the color assignment. I wish they used some type of 'totem' instead of color there...
Color-blind players need to be able to change colors in games, particularly where red = bad, green = good.
Feedback Functionality
My husband is color-blind. He has had a great deal of trouble in the past, particularly with seeing red splats on the ground when the ground is a green shade. I believe the biggest issue he had with it was back in Mod 4 & 5, when the dragon in Ebon Downs does their powers, but there have been several times since then. I think adding a color wheel or something similar would benefit color-blind players, regardless of which form of the color-blindness the player has.
Risks & Concerns
I can't really think of many risks to adding a color-wheel or similar method to change game colors on the screen, but I'm open to feedback. I wasn't really sure if this was appropriate feedback for this discussion, but since accessibility was mentioned, I felt it was worth mentioning.
Being color-blind myself, I agree with this entirely. Thank you, @kreatyve for bringing this up! For me personally, LoMM and the fight with Acturia (sp?) is rough. I have to ask someone to point out which corner to cover since I have a hard time with the color assignment. I wish they used some type of 'totem' instead of color there...
+1 to this. As a tank I know green is left of stairs. When I run as DPS I have no idea what im doing
Make MW a low maintenance, highly rewarding endeavor, without the constant need of adding new recipes and ingredient's. Also would generate renewed interest in Legacy Campaigns.
Feedback Functionality:
The proposal can have a number of different implementation options. 1) Allow MW'ers to produce artifact weapons with the current available base damage as is currently available in the game, however it would have no weapon set bonus. 1a) the MW'ers would sell the blanks on the AH, players would then be able to add the weapon set bonus from a previously ranked up weapon set earned in an area, this would destroy that weapon set and if they wanted to use that bonus again in the future they would have to acquire another set. 1b) Another option would be to allow the MW to learn weapon set bonuses and apply them to the blanks before selling them. 2) Allow this system to be applied to other types of non-artifact gear like boots, arms, chests, heads, and rings. The bonuses would be obtained from older gear of same type.
Risks and Concerns:
Old bonuses to gear and weapons could be to good compared to current gear and may cause a greater disparity in the player base. MW is extremely hard to attain and a relatively small group of players may have a strangle hold on the AH, and can present a barrier to new entrants in MW.
Make MW a low maintenance, highly rewarding endeavor, without the constant need of adding new recipes and ingredient's. Also would generate renewed interest in Legacy Campaigns.
Feedback Functionality:
The proposal can have a number of different implementation options. 1) Allow MW'ers to produce artifact weapons with the current available base damage as is currently available in the game, however it would have no weapon set bonus. 1a) the MW'ers would sell the blanks on the AH, players would then be able to add the weapon set bonus from a previously ranked up weapon set earned in an area, this would destroy that weapon set and if they wanted to use that bonus again in the future they would have to acquire another set. 1b) Another option would be to allow the MW to learn weapon set bonuses and apply them to the blanks before selling them. 2) Allow this system to be applied to other types of non-artifact gear like boots, arms, chests, heads, and rings. The bonuses would be obtained from older gear of same type.
Risks and Concerns:
Old bonuses to gear and weapons could be to good compared to current gear and may cause a greater disparity in the player base. MW is extremely hard to attain and a relatively small group of players may have a strangle hold on the AH, and can present a barrier to new entrants in MW.
Completely agree. All MW profession trees should have viable and useful rewards that remain useful as power levels increase. Percentage based augments and enhancements would be one way to achieve this. I also think introducing more variations and recipes as new content is delivered would keep this area fresh, challenging and rewarding. Trade with the game, such as Lady Begum could also allow for rewards as professions are levelled.
Make MW a low maintenance, highly rewarding endeavor, without the constant need of adding new recipes and ingredient's. Also would generate renewed interest in Legacy Campaigns.
Feedback Functionality:
The proposal can have a number of different implementation options. 1) Allow MW'ers to produce artifact weapons with the current available base damage as is currently available in the game, however it would have no weapon set bonus. 1a) the MW'ers would sell the blanks on the AH, players would then be able to add the weapon set bonus from a previously ranked up weapon set earned in an area, this would destroy that weapon set and if they wanted to use that bonus again in the future they would have to acquire another set. 1b) Another option would be to allow the MW to learn weapon set bonuses and apply them to the blanks before selling them. 2) Allow this system to be applied to other types of non-artifact gear like boots, arms, chests, heads, and rings. The bonuses would be obtained from older gear of same type.
Risks and Concerns:
Old bonuses to gear and weapons could be to good compared to current gear and may cause a greater disparity in the player base. MW is extremely hard to attain and a relatively small group of players may have a strangle hold on the AH, and can present a barrier to new entrants in MW.
Although this thread is a little off topic (as it is about Accessibility), I still want to comment and add me +1.
I agree that some changes to MW crafting are seriously need. Which would include bug fixes -- I still cannot complete MW3 Armorsmithing even though I have the mats, my wizard cannot purchase the recipes. Add to this, in a different thread, I have trying to encourage the return of the MW Stronghold bonus (as an artifact, not a weapon set) with a tie-in to the SH for the mats. Crafting in general, is not a useful or fun as it could be...
Guild: Noble Misfits
Silky Pan'teeze: Drow Wizard
---
Madres de Nasae: Half-elf Rouge
Kepler: Human Paladin
---
Demenoss: Dragonborn Barbarian
Divine Pan'teeze: Drow Cleric
---
Nikki Sharparrow: Human Ranger
0
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
edited December 2019
Topic: Systems Documentation.
Feedback Overview:
Systems within the game are poorly documented. This is a trait which many MMOs are guilty of, but which is done particularly well by single player RPGs. All tooltips and references should have all terminology standardized. All cases of, "more" for example should refer to multiplication and all cases of "increased" should refer to addition as an easy example. All debuffs should be referred to as a single thing, for example, "enemy defense reductions," and should not have multiple terminologies.
Feedback Goal:
Give players who are struggling a reference document to refer to, in order to help them overcome any issues.
Prevent any underlying confusion which exists in the current system, where you have things referred to as, "enemy damage reductions" and, "outgoing damage debuffs" as well as other terminologies.
Make reporting bugs easier. If systems are documented properly, it is easier to identify if something is or is not a bug as the tooltips have proper meaning.
Feedback Functionality:
An in game encyclopedia should be added, documenting all of the gameplay mechanics. It should include counter stats, how the various mechanics interact with each other, the order of operations within the game, damage calculations, etc. It does not need to include information about monsters attacks (an in depth bestiary), as that is something which should be left to a player to discover, but systems documentation should be on the development side, not on the player side. Power tooltips should be concise, lists telling you exactly what the powers do. The current ones are a big improvement from before M16, but there is still a lot of work to go. Furthermore, when hovering over an item in the combat log, it should give you a brief damage calculation with the option to press another button to see an in depth calculation showing the damage resolution.
Examples of all this functionality here, shamelessly stolen from a single player RPG (Pillars of Eternity 2):
Example of a skill tooltip. Note, you can click on this tooltip to link to further detailed information. In game it could maybe open the Encyclopedia page for this.
Example of hovering over something briefly in the combat log.
Example of combat log tooltip after pressing shift.
Example of the in game Encyclopedia. Note, the blue hyperlinks link to those relevant sections of the in game Encyclopedia. Having a bestiary, while nice, is not necessary. The systems information however is essential.
Risks and Concerns:
Making these changes might at first cause some confusion, as it will lead to large scale changes of many of the tooltips within the game. Furthermore, easier access to information due to it being less hidden behind cryptic terminology and having to either look stuff up and test it yourself may reduce the difficulty of the game even further as it becomes easier for players to find things. Both of these concerns however are minor, as with time players should adapt to changed tooltips and in terms of game difficulty, games should be difficult from a mechanical perspective, not because of poor access to documentation.
What is the purpose of CDP limiting threads to specific topics when less than 10% of the playerbase actually answers the question asked? The accessibility topic is closely linked to class balance and i am having to read through comments that have no relevance to it, so i just gave up on reading this CDP.
Feedback Goal Give new players/alt characters a faster way to complete older campaigns.
Feedback Functionality Reduce the currency and time on older campaigns as well as add in some campaign currency into the dungeons as rewards to allow new players/alt characters to streamline the old campaigns since they they would need to work on 12 time/currency based campaigns all at the same time( I skipped ones like EE and Undermountain since you can work on those when you feel like and complete them as fast or slow as you want). This tends to burn out newer players and also stops others from creating multiple characters to run in game. This could also encourage more people to run dungeons as they would be able to work on their campaigns while helping to fill out groups for dungeon runs at the same time.
Risks & Concerns Could hurt your profits from reduced sales of "completion tokens" for campaigns. But it would help new players catch up without feeling overwhelmed/ taking up to a year to catch up on old content. Other players would be able to build more characters without the burnout/huge amount of time to complete them to have more classes available to run in groups.
All the best,
OPTank_
3
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
edited December 2019
Overview:
Content accessibility - before everything else, I believe the question should be, if on the large scale, all content should be accessible to everyone, whether it is in the forms of the same content released as multiple difficulty tiers or some modifiers, like tales or cards.
IMO No.
New content should have some meaningful barrier that players need to achieve, if it's completion of previous challenge, or some gear (unfortunately / IL) or some other metric that will force linear progress.
Feedback Goal:
Higher retention and engagement of the player base. And maintaining viable business model.
Feedback:
On the surface it will seem that making the content accessible to everyone will create better engagement: Everyone have more content accessible per mod release.
I argue that doing that will lead to game decline, and less engagement. The main issue is that if everything available on a very low common denominator there is no incentive to improve (in aspects of gear, personal capability, team work, etc..). If I know that I can see and finish a variation of everything released without much effort, why I need the better gear or whatever reward that drops from the harder version? For bragging rights? Some will want that, and the challenge, but I stipulate that most will not care enough about bragging rights. They will just do the minimum needed to participate, finish, and that's it.
Major part of MMORPG and in the case of NW its business model, is the sense of progress. Become stronger, unlock new challenge, and move on. A sort of linear progress, which once many mods ago was very obvious, and now there is some return. You had A,B,C,D dungeons at Tier 1, which you got gear from, completed, and then you could do E,F,G, and so on.
Now things became complicated, with dungeons removed, catch up gear, only 2 last mods are relevant, counter stats and IL increase per mod, and multiple gear avenues like Hunts, HEs, MEs, and what not. But at the end, still there is a a need for progress, you want to "cap" the stats for the next content, to upgrade the enchants (buy wards from zen shop), and grind for some gear to success in the next content.
Difficulty tiers of the same content is a compromise that attempts to placate everyone, but it falls short, I doubt many will want to do the first quest line, the Nashers crown about 800 times to level up, each time a bit harder. Sense of progress in terms of content as in zone, area, quest and story line (whether it is zone or queued dungeons) is fundamental.
So bottom line, content that is locked behind some completion / advancement / progress (or currently Item level) creates an incentive for for players to actually play, grind, or buy. This creates more indirect engagement than a direct accessibility to all content.
This doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a good way for learning the mechanics and a well done learning curve. CoDG / ToMB shouldn't resurrect on falls, but people shouldn't suffer 15 minutes of elevator just for the attempt to learn it. Same with ToMM, finishing second phase could have symbolic reward, to encourage more players to attempt it. Also that doesn't mean that everything should be ToMM difficulty, but at the same time, there should be some long terms goals for players, and not everything should have a baby version.
Risks & Concerns:
I foresee pitchforks and torches. How dare I suggest something that may be better for the overall game, and not to the personal benefit of a player.
What is the purpose of CDP limiting threads to specific topics when less than 10% of the playerbase actually answers the question asked? The accessibility topic is closely linked to class balance and i am having to read through comments that have no relevance to it, so i just gave up on reading this CDP.
Hi Sobi,
When I have done this type of initiative in the past and over time it goes from being '10%'of the community to a much larger and diverse slice of player types and player base. Some folks will be reading and scared to post at the moment but that will change. The reason for having focused topics is so we can have focused discussion and a focused proposal.
Let's have two versions of each dungeon/trial (at least the level 70 ones): the one we already have and a "story dungeon" instance.
Feedback Goal
Story dungeon instances will let casual players experience the full story per zone and/or practice dungeon mechanics at their own leisure.
Feedback Functionality
Story dungeons are exact duplicates of regular dungeons/trials, with the difference being that A) they only reward a "practice sigil item" unique quest item and can't carry more than one at a time per dungeon/trial and B ) they can be entered and won solo (though you can still party up as it might be necessary in some zones like Castle Ravenloft) - meaning the enemies within do far less damage and have less hit points. No "elite" enemies, but all boss mechanics should still be in place for player training experience. Also, running these "easy mode" instances does not trigger any of the daily RAD rewards.
Minor change required for regular dungeons is that upon opening the "end chest" if a player is carrying a practice sigil item of the appropriate dungeon/trial they get an extra item from the random loot roll.
Risks & Concerns
While I'd definitely use said story dungeon (because I'd like to actually see and finish said dungeons in a timely manner, solo regardless of loot), I'm not sure how many other would actually do that. It's possible that even under prepared characters will just keep trying to PUG the existing instances in hopes that they get carried to earn the daily RAD.
On the flip side, over geared characters might opt to group up to farm the story dungeon for a practice sigil before doing the real thing to get more drops, which will I imagine will decrease the rarity in some items. Hopefully said items are sellable, as an increased supply on the market would help casuals gear up.
We are talking about doing exactly this Joseph.
Let's have two versions of each dungeon/trial (at least the level 70 ones): the one we already have and a "story dungeon" instance.
I would like to start with congratulating with your attempt to communicate with the community, something which people had lost hope on.
First, in terms of Content, there is no campaign that is difficult to access or complete for all classes, so thumps up there. Thus, lets skip the 0.001% of the game experience from lvl 0-80. The same goes for any lower level dungeons except LOMM, CR and few others but even then, as long as you know the mechanics, you don't really have to be a hardcore players to complete them.
Then why do we find a very simply trial such as Tiamat with a huge failure rate? I believe the root of this cause is actually how you gate content behind the requirement of ILVL. A wiser choice would be to use a combination of factors i.e. primary stats and power. Many people have had put forward really good ideas on forums but most players that fail these dungeons are unequipped and expect to be carried. You cannot force them to learn the mechanics, but you can force them to be more prepared aka gear. It would be wise to focus on gating content behind a more realistic equation.
Jumping onto end end game content. I believe part of the reason why TOMM was disliked was because of it being a niche trial i.e. only for very hardcore gamers. Only you guys would know how much revenue TOMM brought but the matter of fact still remains that TOMM is actually a huge success. The reason i think it is disliked was because it introduced the holy trinity system into the game where players actually test their mettle.
As to why TOMM was a failure even among veterans. It was because the whole concept of the trial was gated behind few compulsory classes. I believe that the developer team failed to predict that such a trial would bring the pure holy trinity concept into the game for the first time in its history. In dungeons where hardcore veterans players clash, all that matters is skill. But when you bring in classes that are basically "who can spam faster" and still do crazy more dps, throws any sign of skill out of the window. You could have made TOMM a much bigger success had you balanced classes before its release and even to this day, you are completely ignoring the statistics.
I can with all honesty tell you that there is a minimum of 15% difference between a skill ceiling wizard and skill ceiling Arbiter, Warlock or Barb. That is the minimum and it could be more, but i do see people Exaggerate it to 40-60% but that might also be because Wizards are just so much more suited for TOMM than any other class.
Personally, i see neverwinter as a holy trinity game where skill matters and part of the reason why the new combat system was not favored. It is my opinion that even though more content should focus on the larger portion of population, the whole concept of upgrading gear (a core aspect of the game) demands there to be dungeons and rewards that scale with difficulty. In terms of revenue, the hardcore players are the core part of it; they also are the least patient ones. You will have to strike a balance between campaigns vs dungeons as the former really is a reflection of the latter. Most people complete campaigns for the rewards which dungeons are based on. If you wanted to test this theory, try introducing a campaign for people with no rewards i.e. boons and etc and let them enjoy the lore only. I would love to see how many neverwinter players actually complete the campaign. Dungeons with story embedded into them are very common in MMO's, maybe give that concept a try?
Some great commentary here and lots for me us to think about. Regarding narrative (although slightly off topic) we are going to be focusing on this more moving forward throughout the game. Specifically player relevance/purpose, a living evolving world, and interconnecting arcs of various levels.
Comments
Comps are a much bigger expense overall now than before but the importance of them is the same.
If you were picking a comp pre-mod 16 based solely off "this looks cool" than you weren't using the BiS comp. It would change periodically and everyone would run the same just like now (fire archons, sellswords, chultan tigers, etc for example).
So you still have the option to underperform now by choosing any non-BiS companion you choose to run. Nothing has changed in regards to people choosing BiS comps. We've been doing it for years.
One of the problems is the velocity of levelling to reach lv 80, when you create a new character all this 80 level sounds like a tutorial for the real game (but it fail in this mission).
I suggest to slow down the experience acquired, this force the players to obtain some skill on his character during play time and, by side effect, automatically revamp all the old items and workshop.
With a change like that maybe is possible to shift some old campaing to a low level (dread ring and sharandar for example).
By the other side a seasoned player that create a new character can use the knox reclutament token and skip all of this (maybe with lv 80 and all low level campaing completed)
Feedback Overview :
Improved, updated, specific, and accurate descriptions of zen store items.
Feedback Goal:
It will allow buyers to have a better idea of what they are purchasing, and help them to make better choices.
Feedback Functionality:
The most recent example was the Hell Pit Event Buyout and the Partial Buyout. The forums are littered with the fallout from miscommunication. Folks didn't understand what they were buying, or the consequences of buying early. This should have been made crystal clear in the description, but it wasn't. It was quite logical to believe, for example, that if you purchased the Hell Pit Event Buyout and the Partial Buyout you would get two completion tokens. You didn't. Folks are left to wonder if all of this currency will be used throughout the year in special pit events, or whether it was a one time deal and they might have lost out at buying from the right vendor. The time or event sensitive nature of the currency should be extremely explicit in the description. This would not eliminate all possible reasons for miscommunication, but it would help quite a bit with customer satisfaction if it was clear that the problem was on our end because your descriptions were explicit and accurate. In addition, if an item is account bound or available to be claimed by only one character on an account that information should be big and bold. It is confusing when early packs involved mounts that are claimable by every character on an account (which is a HUGE selling point), and the later packs that have included one mount for one character on an account (much less attractive). I remember this being stated in the description, but it was easy to miss and I heard a lot of disappointment from folks in the degradation of the value of packs and the lack of understanding that their new mount would be for only one character. This could have been avoided with a very clear description.
Risks & Concerns :
Honestly, I don't imagine any risk or concerns for the company if they hire a writer to go through and validate that these descriptions actually identify exactly what someone will receive, and that they are specific enough to give players an accurate idea of what they are purchasing and what will happen next. If part of the purchase is broken (as tattoos were for certain Drow for awhile or it will lock someone out of an event like with Hell Pit) then that kind of thing should be noted as a current issue with the purchase.
I think the risk and concern is if this *doesn't* happen. Folks that make frequent zen purchases, like myself, can feel a bit burnt when they receive something different than expected. Sometimes the fault lies with us, but we need a fair shot at knowing what we are purchasing. A clear and updated description goes a looooong way.
However it is still a good idea. It just needs to be approached differently...
I feel a more diplomatic solution is to increase the methods players can get and improve companions/bondings. That way new guys get a hand up while older players with maxed companions and companion items don't really feel a "sting" since they aren't losing stats.
Create a Common Currency and a trader for it.
Feedback Goal
The best way to always have the latest campaign currency on hand (alphastream's suggestion), consolidate dungeon keys (from dominous12), and to remove the "wasted time" of grinding outdated legacy gear (from wilbur626) is to add a Common Currency. It will clean up the inventory for veterans, keep any content relevant for play, and help new comers work towards stuff they need - rather than just for campaign boons.
Feedback Functionality
All zone credits can be traded at the trader for "Commons" (I'm sure you'll think up of a better name) at various degrees - you'll need a lot more Blacklake currency to buy one "Common Coin" in comparison to trading Black Ice, Chult totems or Guild marks for example.
Common Coins will then be used as the main trading currency for gear, such as consolidated dungeon keys or non-outdated gear. Or hey, maybe even outdated gear at a lower price because some people love transmutes - especially the RP crowd up in the Moonstone Mask. Maybe this Common vendor also sells Stronhold vouchers (lets lower level folk help develop stronghold - another alphastream suggestion), companion and companion buffs (alleviates cilginordek's post re: companions), enchantments, and seals?
Risks & Concerns
A similar but smaller scale event frequently happens with Seals already so we know it's possible. Just note that this trader will need to be updated semi-regularly (at least per mod) for currency exchange rates.
Side Note: I had thought of a "nuclear" approach too, where all zones lose their individual currency and reward "Commons" directly but that's a bad idea as zone currencies tie into things like campaign progression. A change like that's going to be a massive amount of work, and one I cannot recommend. The above method will be more than adequate.
We need epic and normal or master and apprentice versions of the newest dungeons and trials that come out. It wouldn’t be a problem if the lower difficulty versions are discontinued a few mods later, but it is inconsiderate to most of the player base to not include a lesser difficulty version of the newer contents, not for the rewards, but for the experience. There should be a noticeable difference in the rewards, of course, as the lesser version is meant more for fun and practice.
Feedback Goal:
A new mod raises the level of gear requirements, but not all players are geared equally. Everybody wants to run the newest content, because that’s where the fun is, but they are usually hindered by their current gear level.
The most difficult part of running higher gear required content like TOMM is finding the players that are geared for it. The epic version is great for the serious players all jacked up with the BIS gear, but it would be better if there was also a normal version that we could run with our friends and community members that are not as geared, after all, everyone is equally excited and eager to run the new content. A challenge is always appreciated, but sometimes we want to run something for fun, cause “it ain’t fun if the homies can’t have none”.
Feedback Functionality:
If we take LOMM and TOMM as examples of difficulty levels for future content, I would say we need a Master version (more difficult) for LOMM and a Normal version (less difficult) of TOMM. The level of difficulty IMO is indicated by the amount of HP, Damage, and Defense the NPCs have. There would be no need to change the mechanics or how anything else works, only the amount of HP, Damage, and Defense the ads and bosses contain and the rewards available for completing the run. And as far as the rewards go for the normal version, they can basically have the same contents as CODG since the normal version would mostly be for fun and practice.
Risks and Concerns:
Normal and Epic versions are something we’ve had in the past and it has worked out, so I can’t think of any risks. As for concerns, the major one is rewards. After all, what makes a dungeon re-playable is if the rewards are worth farming for. What makes a reward worth farming is if we can sell it in the auction house for a decent amount of AD, I’d say a decent amount for the current market is at least 100,000 AD. The biggest difference between the normal and epic version should be that the epic version drops rewards that are “Bind on Equip” so we can have something to sell in the auction house. One of the rewards that would be worth farming even several mods later are the Mark of Potency ranks 6 and 7, more so the rank 6 than the rank 7. We already have many ways to farm the Enhancing stones ranks 5 and 6 so we will most likely roll past those in search of better rewards. New artifacts are also a good reward, but that all depends on the stats and effects. I can’t think of specific effects, but generally a buff/debuff to damage dealt does the trick. And as for stats, we’re always looking for more Power, HP, and combat advantage since those are the hardest to cap.
Paragon Path/Role Balance
All paragon paths should be equally capable of performing their roles. Mod 16 playtester feedback combined with some poor feat/mechanic/power design led to a balance favoring classes that don't have a secondary role paragon path as the best DPS classes. Since roles require a very different gearing investment the consideration of the 5 classes capable of fulfilling 2 roles should not be a consideration,
Feedback Overview: Balance all DPS paragon paths.
Feedback Goal: All DPS paths, not just the "pure" DPS paths are equally viable in all content.
Feedback Functionality: Previous changes left classes such as Fighter, Barbarian, Cleric and Warlock with underperforming DPS paths and is the #1 obstacle to player inclusion and content accessibility for players wishing to use unpopular paragon paths. This above all else has to be addressed if you want to increase content accessibility.
Risks & Concerns: None, aside from those same advocates for "pure DPS classes to be better DPS than hybrid classes" complaining over a lack of a secondary role and perceived feeling of disadvantage in finding dungeon groups.
Legacy Campaign Timegates
Feedback Overview: Remove timegates on legacy (lvl60-80 campaigns) to decrease the time it takes for a new player to earn boons on trivialized content. Added benefit - helps smaller guilds level up strongholds easier.
Feedback Goal: Get more new players truly ready for endgame.
Feedback Functionality: For older campaigns such as Feywild, Tyranny, Dread Ring, and Icewind Dale remove daily quest limits, allowing quests to be picked up and completed back to back for older campaigns. Leave weekly quests at 1x per week. For newer campaigns with the weekly limits leave weekly quests as is and remove weekly currency limits.
Risks & Concerns: Honestly don't see a downside - the campaigns are outdated, rewards mostly useless, but newbies need the boons to round out their builds. Keys left at 1 per 20 hours keeps the dungeon rewards where they are at. Will reduce small guild dependence on Siege events to make progress with members still working on the campaigns.
Scaling and % damage increase equip bonuses.
Feedback Overview: Adding scaling to the game in the manner it was added created a situation where drastically older gear NEVER really gets outdated. With % damage increase bonuses this effect is magnified. Either fix scaling so that the enemies scale up to players, not players down to enemies, or remove it.
Feedback Goal: Give us a reason to get new gear.
Feedback Functionality: Revamp or remove scaling. Phase out % damage bonuses or release updated versions with new modules to reintroduce gear chase.
Risks & Concerns: Biggest risk is alienating the playerbase by making the wrong move.
This game has major issues with providing half true statements or misrepresentation in their tooltip. I must say, other than their pretense over class balance, this is the second most hated thing about this game for me. Alas, there are more positives, hence why i keep playing it.
All random queues are tied to whether you come across easy activity or not, they still have to be opened long and hard, or just do not let it go - this is a very strange mechanic, which in theory should allow beginners to catch up, but in reality only limits them and spoils the game . And if you get "bad" activity you just need to leave the dungeon - you haven’t seen this in any game. In other games, if the activity of a random queue is complicated, buffs work to compensate for this, so that a person can go through new content and not feel like a stranger at a holiday.
In the game, just do not understand what and why the character. What characteristics should he download to be useful in dungeons. Which of the uninteresting weak few useful talents to choose. Which satellite is better. What set of mounts and their signs are needed. Etc. A beginner should come into the game as an expert in game mechanics. Example: An Orkus set is stronger than top-end actual things, this is stupid in the first place because it bothers to wear the same things for years, and in the second it is not obvious.
Feedback Overview: There are so many ideas in my mind, but one that always comes first to me are ways to revive the old campaigns. Neveriwnter is very rich in content, its campaigns and stories, something that went unnoticed as most campaigns make it boring for many, having campaign currency limits and daily and weekly issues makes it a lament for the gamer, campaigns like Tyranny of Dragons and Storm King thunder become infinite and all of them basically bring 1 interesting key and boon points, making it all a must. I know this could probably help sell already completed campaigns, but it can all be reviewed, so that the campaigns become lighter and make them easier options for beginners, also bringing opportunities for end game players to retracting legacy campaigns more dynamically, legacy campaigns was a great idea, but still not enough to take away that "boring thing I have to go back to that campaign just to get the Legacy coins".
Feedback Goal: Bringing in a system that can accelerate the start of campaigners a little and that can spontaneously attract veterans to return to old campaigns, interrelating novices and veterans by encouraging them to play together or at least on the same map by drawing the desert feel that newbies have when playing on some maps.
Feedback Functionality: - Bring a more versatile campaign medal exchange, making daily quests and weeks an already refined AD farm form, even in small amounts that benefits beginners and veterans alike.
-Fold the Campaigns weekly coin cap, and for campaigns that don't have a coin cap, make the daily quests double the coin.
- Place within the Campaign Exchange a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 exchange between other campaign currencies according to the difficulty of the coin drop and their need for campaign advancement, so the player could conclude Part of a Tyranny of Dragons Making Ravenloft Coins, you still need to do Tyranny of Dragons quests and the exchange would have daily or weekly limits.
- You could add an exchange store access token from each map. Ex: after doing X Tyranny of Dragons quest numbers I gain 1 Token of access to this campaign currency trader, so I can make 1 exchange of up to X coins from other campaigns for Tyranny of Dragons.
- For Veterans this Token would also give mercant access but they will focus on the second tab of the store for items such as 8, 9 or 10 enchantments, wards, mark of potency, enchanting up to rank 5, buff potion and even AD itself Refined.
Risks/Concerns: Veteran players may want to make this type of farm their primary, and novice players may be confused as to the proper targeting of goat coins. For that I have 3 pertinent observations for possible solutions.
-OBS 1:
Exchange's second tab would only release to newcomers after campaign completion, thus bringing one more benefit to their conclusion, and a continuing benefit unlike single reward boons and preventing newbies from thinking of getting items before to complete the campaign. For those who buy the campaign will need an access lock to this second store in addition to the need to release the access token, this second lock will only allow access to this store after filling the token bar twice, if the exchange is weekly , and 10 times if the exchange is daily-OBS 2:
The exchange must have a daily or weekly limit to prevent this farm form from becoming primary. This bar would be in the layout of the campaign itself as the weekly coin accumulation bar, but it would count the number of questions completed.-OBS 3:
After the player completes a status reduction would be applied to him, making him weaker than normal for that map, but stronger than any beginner, this would reduce the very high discrepancy between novice and veteran leaving the farm still challenging. for the veterans, not reducing the novice experience that will still see the veteran as such.Make gear drops relevant
Feedback Goal
To avoid having new players farming for and upgrading gear that is 100% useless when they hit max level. Currently 55 of the 62 artifacts in collections are close to (most 100%) useless when you hit level 80. This also goes for sub level 80 epic armor and weapons ofc.
Feedback Functionality
New players should be informed of this, items should be removed from the game OR items should be upgradeable to "endgame" level.
Risks & Concerns
The only risk is that RP sales will go down a bit. I think thats better than having players leave when they realize they wasted AD/ZEN/£ on useless items,
Just dropping in to say i was out yesterday unpacking my house. I am going to spend some time today catching up and will be jumping in tomorrow.
Chris
Master Work
Feedback Goal:
Make MW a low maintenance, highly rewarding endeavor, without the constant need of adding new recipes and ingredient's. Also would generate renewed interest in Legacy Campaigns.
Feedback Functionality:
The proposal can have a number of different implementation options. 1) Allow MW'ers to produce artifact weapons with the current available base damage as is currently available in the game, however it would have no weapon set bonus. 1a) the MW'ers would sell the blanks on the AH, players would then be able to add the weapon set bonus from a previously ranked up weapon set earned in an area, this would destroy that weapon set and if they wanted to use that bonus again in the future they would have to acquire another set. 1b) Another option would be to allow the MW to learn weapon set bonuses and apply them to the blanks before selling them. 2) Allow this system to be applied to other types of non-artifact gear like boots, arms, chests, heads, and rings. The bonuses would be obtained from older gear of same type.
Risks and Concerns:
Old bonuses to gear and weapons could be to good compared to current gear and may cause a greater disparity in the player base. MW is extremely hard to attain and a relatively small group of players may have a strangle hold on the AH, and can present a barrier to new entrants in MW.
I agree that some changes to MW crafting are seriously need. Which would include bug fixes -- I still cannot complete MW3 Armorsmithing even though I have the mats, my wizard cannot purchase the recipes. Add to this, in a different thread, I have trying to encourage the return of the MW Stronghold bonus (as an artifact, not a weapon set) with a tie-in to the SH for the mats. Crafting in general, is not a useful or fun as it could be...
Topic: Systems Documentation.
Feedback Overview:
Systems within the game are poorly documented. This is a trait which many MMOs are guilty of, but which is done particularly well by single player RPGs. All tooltips and references should have all terminology standardized. All cases of, "more" for example should refer to multiplication and all cases of "increased" should refer to addition as an easy example. All debuffs should be referred to as a single thing, for example, "enemy defense reductions," and should not have multiple terminologies.Feedback Goal:
Feedback Functionality:
An in game encyclopedia should be added, documenting all of the gameplay mechanics. It should include counter stats, how the various mechanics interact with each other, the order of operations within the game, damage calculations, etc. It does not need to include information about monsters attacks (an in depth bestiary), as that is something which should be left to a player to discover, but systems documentation should be on the development side, not on the player side. Power tooltips should be concise, lists telling you exactly what the powers do. The current ones are a big improvement from before M16, but there is still a lot of work to go. Furthermore, when hovering over an item in the combat log, it should give you a brief damage calculation with the option to press another button to see an in depth calculation showing the damage resolution.Examples of all this functionality here, shamelessly stolen from a single player RPG (Pillars of Eternity 2):
Example of a skill tooltip.
Note, you can click on this tooltip to link to further detailed information. In game it could maybe open the Encyclopedia page for this.
Example of hovering over something briefly in the combat log.
Example of combat log tooltip after pressing shift.
Example of the in game Encyclopedia.
Note, the blue hyperlinks link to those relevant sections of the in game Encyclopedia. Having a bestiary, while nice, is not necessary. The systems information however is essential.
Risks and Concerns:
Making these changes might at first cause some confusion, as it will lead to large scale changes of many of the tooltips within the game. Furthermore, easier access to information due to it being less hidden behind cryptic terminology and having to either look stuff up and test it yourself may reduce the difficulty of the game even further as it becomes easier for players to find things. Both of these concerns however are minor, as with time players should adapt to changed tooltips and in terms of game difficulty, games should be difficult from a mechanical perspective, not because of poor access to documentation.Streamlining older campaigns
Feedback Goal
Give new players/alt characters a faster way to complete older campaigns.
Feedback Functionality
Reduce the currency and time on older campaigns as well as add in some campaign currency into the dungeons as rewards to allow new players/alt characters to streamline the old campaigns since they they would need to work on 12 time/currency based campaigns all at the same time( I skipped ones like EE and Undermountain since you can work on those when you feel like and complete them as fast or slow as you want). This tends to burn out newer players and also stops others from creating multiple characters to run in game. This could also encourage more people to run dungeons as they would be able to work on their campaigns while helping to fill out groups for dungeon runs at the same time.
Risks & Concerns
Could hurt your profits from reduced sales of "completion tokens" for campaigns. But it would help new players catch up without feeling overwhelmed/ taking up to a year to catch up on old content. Other players would be able to build more characters without the burnout/huge amount of time to complete them to have more classes available to run in groups.
All the best,
OPTank_
Content accessibility - before everything else, I believe the question should be, if on the large scale, all content should be accessible to everyone, whether it is in the forms of the same content released as multiple difficulty tiers or some modifiers, like tales or cards.
IMO No.
New content should have some meaningful barrier that players need to achieve, if it's completion of previous challenge, or some gear (unfortunately / IL) or some other metric that will force linear progress.
Feedback Goal:
Higher retention and engagement of the player base. And maintaining viable business model.
Feedback:
On the surface it will seem that making the content accessible to everyone will create better engagement: Everyone have more content accessible per mod release.
I argue that doing that will lead to game decline, and less engagement. The main issue is that if everything available on a very low common denominator there is no incentive to improve (in aspects of gear, personal capability, team work, etc..).
If I know that I can see and finish a variation of everything released without much effort, why I need the better gear or whatever reward that drops from the harder version? For bragging rights? Some will want that, and the challenge, but I stipulate that most will not care enough about bragging rights.
They will just do the minimum needed to participate, finish, and that's it.
Major part of MMORPG and in the case of NW its business model, is the sense of progress. Become stronger, unlock new challenge, and move on. A sort of linear progress, which once many mods ago was very obvious, and now there is some return.
You had A,B,C,D dungeons at Tier 1, which you got gear from, completed, and then you could do E,F,G, and so on.
Now things became complicated, with dungeons removed, catch up gear, only 2 last mods are relevant, counter stats and IL increase per mod, and multiple gear avenues like Hunts, HEs, MEs, and what not. But at the end, still there is a a need for progress, you want to "cap" the stats for the next content, to upgrade the enchants (buy wards from zen shop), and grind for some gear to success in the next content.
Difficulty tiers of the same content is a compromise that attempts to placate everyone, but it falls short, I doubt many will want to do the first quest line, the Nashers crown about 800 times to level up, each time a bit harder. Sense of progress in terms of content as in zone, area, quest and story line (whether it is zone or queued dungeons) is fundamental.
So bottom line, content that is locked behind some completion / advancement / progress (or currently Item level) creates an incentive for for players to actually play, grind, or buy.
This creates more indirect engagement than a direct accessibility to all content.
This doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a good way for learning the mechanics and a well done learning curve. CoDG / ToMB shouldn't resurrect on falls, but people shouldn't suffer 15 minutes of elevator just for the attempt to learn it.
Same with ToMM, finishing second phase could have symbolic reward, to encourage more players to attempt it.
Also that doesn't mean that everything should be ToMM difficulty, but at the same time, there should be some long terms goals for players, and not everything should have a baby version.
Risks & Concerns:
I foresee pitchforks and torches.
How dare I suggest something that may be better for the overall game, and not to the personal benefit of a player.
When I have done this type of initiative in the past and over time it goes from being '10%'of the community to a much larger and diverse slice of player types and player base. Some folks will be reading and scared to post at the moment but that will change. The reason for having focused topics is so we can have focused discussion and a focused proposal.
Chris
Let's have two versions of each dungeon/trial (at least the level 70 ones): the one we already have and a "story dungeon" instance.
Chris
Chris