There are some big questions for the team to work out, and I realize you'd all like to know exactly what changes are going to happen and when, but I can't say because we haven't put any details in stone ourselves, beyond my mentioning adjustments coming to the 2 DC meta.
Earlier you called it a nerf referring to DCs. Could you at least clarify whether that's the intent or if it's more of a change to powers stacking? Like...is it a nerf to my own powers that you're planning, or a nerf to synergy? Having an idea of this would make a huge difference. A nerf to my synergy means I can carry on as usual, aside from perhaps adjusting the powers I choose, but a nerf to my powers is very different.
Because frankly, as a 16k DC I'm feeling extremely demotivated right now. I was fine with the bonding changes even though I was SO close to having all rank 12s - finally finally finally achieving a goal! - and the rug was pulled out there. I went to preview and checked out how things would be, and I felt really good about it going forward after working out what I'd have to adjust.
However, now this vague *more changes coming* has made me feel like there's no point in doing anything more to progress my character until this "nerf" / "adjustment" happens whenever "soon" is. If it's a nerf to me, why upgrade anything if it's going to become pointless *soon* because some other thing will be better? (Which seems to happen every time I finally get *this close* to getting where I want to go.)
I was essentially an all day every day player until you made that first post about this, and now I just kind of log in and get my key, and then I feel like...jeez, what's the point? And I end up going to do something else. Because...why bother with a "nerf?" "adjustment" coming? Knowing if there's a point would be helpful.
@micky1p00 if you want to continue be critical of various forms of abuse which were partially expanded upon within the parenthesis in no particular order including "etc." then go for it. Abusers include the acts or lack of that often enough happen in queued content (not limited to purposely underperforming, stalling). Repeatedly queuing the easiest can be considered abuse depending on the beholder and if not considered abusing it is for the most part the first step seeing as the easier content is ran more often than longer content and is often enough where various abuse happens.
"Loaded questions" are usually not answered from this end, something about the attempt to dictate responses doesn't appeal, not to mention even when the questions are not answered, the asker often answers it themselves so it's easier to let them do that.
1.) Will not share the AD gain systems players from this end utilize, doing so will devalue those efforts.
There's really nothing more to state about it.
One of the "downsides" (supposed less RAD) comes from heavily relying on queues for RAD/AD. Those that don't "solely" rely on queues are pretty much in better shape in that regard and don't have to "tackle" it head on, their other sources of AD will more than compensate.
ALL Rights Reserved for any and all suggestions, ideas, etc. from this user.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY "No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
Um no! The rewards are hoarable at a systemic level in game and have been trending towards worse since at least mod 6. Teaching guildies how to play the game is painful. Teaching pugs that dont want to learn/were not programed to learn is about as much fun as developing a high hemoroid.
I agree with you in theory. But the real issue is language. If they cannot read/write/understand English, how can I teach them anything? That has been my issue in PUGs. That could be a HUGE issue here.
So many people don't even read the chat window. The number of times I've done Throne where someone hdps idiot keeps killing the hulks despite the whole team trying to get his attention via chat. Rather than "kick" how about "kick with reason"...maybe [Kick - Review the Mechanics] [Kick - Abusing] [Kick - etc]
Come think of it, why not let RQ have [Willing to Teach] [Wanting to Learn] [Speed run] [Normal run] buttons...where maybe the first two sort by language, and willing-to-teach has higher rewards?
With randumb Q it kinda looks like a GF or OP will be forced to Tank rather than buff same can go for a DC getting forced to play healer . Maybe next the devs need to look at changing are paragon paths so we only have only one build that way we can play the game just as they want/intend/force us to.
Hadn't really considered this angle. Does this mean the devs have made an official decision on CW being a DPS class?
Regarding how the "random" queue drives players to where they are most needed...
How is this prioritised?
I'm assuming this has been given serious consideration...
Take, for instance, a situation where Bob has been queuing in Malabogs Castle for twenty minutes. Terry, Geoff and Lucy have group queued for EToS and been waiting five minutes... all are DPS characters. Where is my random queuing 12k DC "most needed" in this situation?
Also, imagine if you can a scenario where five random queuers end up in FBI and Eric the Cleric says, "Bollox to that..." and quits. (You never know... it might happen...) Does that group become the new "most needed" or would I end up with Bob? Or Terry and Lucy and co?
1
plasticbatMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 12,208Arc User
Regarding how the "random" queue drives players to where they are most needed...
How is this prioritised?
I'm assuming this has been given serious consideration...
Take, for instance, a situation where Bob has been queuing in Malabogs Castle for twenty minutes. Terry, Geoff and Lucy have group queued for EToS and been waiting five minutes... all are DPS characters. Where is my random queuing 12k DC "most needed" in this situation?
Also, imagine if you can a scenario where five random queuers end up in FBI and Eric the Cleric says, "Bollox to that..." and quits. (You never know... it might happen...) Does that group become the new "most needed" or would I end up with Bob? Or Terry and Lucy and co?
I don't know how Cryptic will program that but if I am the programmer, it will be neither until who else and how many will show up next because 1 DC cannot complete either queue.
*** The game can read your mind. If you want it, you won't get it. If you don't expect to get it, you will. ***
Regarding how the "random" queue drives players to where they are most needed...
How is this prioritised?
I'm assuming this has been given serious consideration...
Take, for instance, a situation where Bob has been queuing in Malabogs Castle for twenty minutes. Terry, Geoff and Lucy have group queued for EToS and been waiting five minutes... all are DPS characters. Where is my random queuing 12k DC "most needed" in this situation?
Also, imagine if you can a scenario where five random queuers end up in FBI and Eric the Cleric says, "Bollox to that..." and quits. (You never know... it might happen...) Does that group become the new "most needed" or would I end up with Bob? Or Terry and Lucy and co?
Odds are Eric the Cleric will simply decline the queue when it pops up and he sees FBI. He'll decline until he gets what he wants.
Costs set by Cryptic, you mostly have the choice of paying in full, or opting out of those systems altogether.
I did address this, in my post, but that entire block of text was mostly a what if for those speculating their earnings would drop significantly. We actually don't think they will. In fact, we're fairly confident that on average earnings will probably be going up.
Does this mean that you can do random queues as a group of 3 for regular dungeons and 5 for epic dungeons?
That's correct, this has always been the case. Some have pointed out that this is counter to design goal of the queues firing faster, and on some level a full group isn't going to make the queue faster for anyone else, but they're still firing a queue. We don't want to stop people from queuing with a full group of friends, and although we know plenty of people will form groups ahead of time, we think there will still be plenty of singles and partial groups queuing.
Probably not, as the queue would be able to sort the EToS players together and potentially sort the random players into random dungeons.
Though it would still depend on party compositions. If the manual EToS queue was full of DPS and not enough supports, the supports would be shunted over to fill groups for them.
I'm still side-eyeing the idea that support players are basically expected to be glorified babysitters who exist for purposes of ensuring that mediocre DPS players can get into anything they want.
Your analysis of what would happen if a lot of players were manually queuing for EToS is close. You could basically say that, for those queuing as solo or a partial group, your chances of getting a queue that players popularly queue for outside the random queue system (which will likely be those queues that are currently popular) is higher than getting something people rarely queue for.
However, how much higher will depend on how many players are in the random queue vs. how many people are manually queuing for each given queue. It's unlikely that the breakdown of tanks-healers-DPS in random queue vs manual queue will be different enough that you'll see huge differences in likelihood of getting certain queues by role.
In regards to the "idea that support players are expected to be glorified babysitters," this isn't the goal nor do we believe this will be the execution of the random queue system. Selection isn't based on role in any way other than the group that is formed will meet the 1 tank, 1 healer, 3 DPS requirement. If you are a devoted cleric with a guardian fighter friend and you want to do Valindra, and there are no DPS manually queued for that, you will get 3 DPS who are queued for a random epic dungeon. Just as a DPS manually queued for Valindra would eventually get a tank and a healer.
The only part of the system that really does anything about encouraging certain roles to play is the role bonus, which will most often be for healers or tanks, giving them a bit of bonus AD when they queue for a random category that has a deficit of that role.
Earlier you called it a nerf referring to DCs. Could you at least clarify whether that's the intent or if it's more of a change to powers stacking? Like...is it a nerf to my own powers that you're planning, or a nerf to synergy? Having an idea of this would make a huge difference. A nerf to my synergy means I can carry on as usual, aside from perhaps adjusting the powers I choose, but a nerf to my powers is very different.
I was referring to nerfing the 2 DC meta, I apologize for the lack of clarity. We don't have any intent to nerf DC generally. I spoke about how in the long run we'd like to make damage dealers focus more on dealing damage, and healers more on healing and generally everyone less on buffing and rebuffing, so depending on your feelings, those adjustments could be seen as a nerf, but those are longer term goals.
The more near term goal of ensuring that players don't want to bring 2 DCs to a 5 man (at least in the sense that it wouldn't actually be faster than bringing another class) won't be directed at making devoted cleric generally worse in any way. There's plenty of speculation that whatever adjustments are made will make one of the paragon paths "unplayable," but obviously, this is something we'll try to avoid when making adjustments.
Regarding how the "random" queue drives players to where they are most needed...
How is this prioritised?
I'm assuming this has been given serious consideration...
Take, for instance, a situation where Bob has been queuing in Malabogs Castle for twenty minutes. Terry, Geoff and Lucy have group queued for EToS and been waiting five minutes... all are DPS characters. Where is my random queuing 12k DC "most needed" in this situation?
Also, imagine if you can a scenario where five random queuers end up in FBI and Eric the Cleric says, "Bollox to that..." and quits. (You never know... it might happen...) Does that group become the new "most needed" or would I end up with Bob? Or Terry and Lucy and co?
I talked a little bit about the algorithm in response to the question about "will I be more likely to get a popular queue" above. The algorithm for matching is largely unchanged with the addition of random queues, it's just that someone in a random queue is considered across multiple individual queues.
Basically, the oldest match group (even if it's just a single player) in any given queue gets priority. The queue system looks at everyone in every eligible queue every frame and attempts to make the best match giving the oldest groups priority. There's all sorts of hypothetical what if scenarios one can dream up where a partial group never gets matched, but we looked at the volume of people queuing and the size of the match groups they queued in and we're confident this sort of scenario won't arise.
It is true that in some cases you may get a match slightly slower in a group than as an individual. You might be queued as a duo of DPS, and be the oldest DPS in the queue, and a 4 person group queues only missing a single DPS, a solo DPS newer than you might get that spot before the queue system finds a tank, healer and 3rd DPS for you. I do want to emphasize though, with the volume of players queueing, you should be plenty fine queuing with any eligible configuration.
Come think of it, why not let RQ have [Willing to Teach] [Wanting to Learn] [Speed run] [Normal run] buttons...where maybe the first two sort by language, and willing-to-teach has higher rewards?
There are definitely improvements that can be made to the random queue feature in the future. A mentoring queue that matches experienced players with those who are flagg
To be clear, RQ players should not be considered "noobs" as they will have completed all campaigns and be above 11k. IN fact they'll most likely all be above 12k.
Please Do Not Feed The Trolls
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
Member of Casual Dailies - XBox
1
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
You can't just keep quoting in my name and replying. People will think I have something useful to say, and we can't have that, I have a reputation to uphold !
I'm interested if The Shores of Tuern and Kessel Retreat will be moved back to skimish category or they will be part of Epic Dungeon RQ.
They are currently giving skimish class reward, but placed in Epic Dungeon category, and their placement is purely cosmetic problem. But with RQ system, their category will matter.
@asterdahl So you want to move the game toward buffs and defbuffs being less important, and healing and dealing damage more...imho that is a very bad idea, and here are the reasons why I think so:
The most impactful one on queue culture(or run forming and doing culture), so the thing you claim you´re trying to improve, is: a players ability to heal and/or deal damage scales with what he has(gear, enchantments, companions, insignias, boons...) while the vast majoritiy of buffs and debuffs only require having the right powers at rank 4, and some recovery to keep them up. So the current system allows new or otherwise low geared players(who know how, and are willing to) a meaningful contribution to the succsess chance, speed and quality of a run. The system you seem to be aiming for would greatly reduce, or remove that ability(depending o how far you go), makeing the envoirement a lot more elitist/toxic.
How are you forced to play with so called "noobs" if you can random que with a full party? Am I missing something here?
If you q with a full party, and get msp or fbi for example, maybe that's fine with your party. But you have to q public to do random qs, so if one of your team dcs (and it can take people more than 5 minutes to restart/log in) or has to leave, you won't be able to invite another friend, but rather they'll be replaced by anyone in random q, and with the new account-wide unlocks, that makes it even better, because it could be a barely geared, way underbooned alt using someone's extra r12s.
My alts have no business being in there. I have them good enough to do Shar and Dread Ring every week, but now I could just bring them in to be carried. Weee.
> @armadeonx said: > To be clear, RQ players should not be considered "noobs" as they will have completed all campaigns and be above 11k. IN fact they'll most likely all be above 12k.
My reference to "noobs" (I dislike the term) was sarcasm toward the post before mine.
"All dungeons and trials that are unlocked via campaigns are now account unlocks. This affects the following queues: Demogorgon (Master) Fangbreaker Island Assault on Svardborg Assault on Svardborg (Master) Spellplague Caverns (Master) Tomb of the Nine Gods"
Comments
Because frankly, as a 16k DC I'm feeling extremely demotivated right now. I was fine with the bonding changes even though I was SO close to having all rank 12s - finally finally finally achieving a goal! - and the rug was pulled out there. I went to preview and checked out how things would be, and I felt really good about it going forward after working out what I'd have to adjust.
However, now this vague *more changes coming* has made me feel like there's no point in doing anything more to progress my character until this "nerf" / "adjustment" happens whenever "soon" is. If it's a nerf to me, why upgrade anything if it's going to become pointless *soon* because some other thing will be better? (Which seems to happen every time I finally get *this close* to getting where I want to go.)
I was essentially an all day every day player until you made that first post about this, and now I just kind of log in and get my key, and then I feel like...jeez, what's the point? And I end up going to do something else. Because...why bother with a "nerf?" "adjustment" coming? Knowing if there's a point would be helpful.
"Loaded questions" are usually not answered from this end, something about the attempt to dictate responses doesn't appeal, not to mention even when the questions are not answered, the asker often answers it themselves so it's easier to let them do that.
Again: There's really nothing more to state about it.
One of the "downsides" (supposed less RAD) comes from heavily relying on queues for RAD/AD. Those that don't "solely" rely on queues are pretty much in better shape in that regard and don't have to "tackle" it head on, their other sources of AD will more than compensate.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY
"No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
Ongoing Issue: Legitmate Players Banned for Botting (Console) and the Future for "Dedicated" Players
Suggestions: (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen
How is this prioritised?
I'm assuming this has been given serious consideration...
Take, for instance, a situation where Bob has been queuing in Malabogs Castle for twenty minutes. Terry, Geoff and Lucy have group queued for EToS and been waiting five minutes... all are DPS characters. Where is my random queuing 12k DC "most needed" in this situation?
Also, imagine if you can a scenario where five random queuers end up in FBI and Eric the Cleric says, "Bollox to that..." and quits. (You never know... it might happen...)
Does that group become the new "most needed" or would I end up with Bob? Or Terry and Lucy and co?
However, how much higher will depend on how many players are in the random queue vs. how many people are manually queuing for each given queue. It's unlikely that the breakdown of tanks-healers-DPS in random queue vs manual queue will be different enough that you'll see huge differences in likelihood of getting certain queues by role.
In regards to the "idea that support players are expected to be glorified babysitters," this isn't the goal nor do we believe this will be the execution of the random queue system. Selection isn't based on role in any way other than the group that is formed will meet the 1 tank, 1 healer, 3 DPS requirement. If you are a devoted cleric with a guardian fighter friend and you want to do Valindra, and there are no DPS manually queued for that, you will get 3 DPS who are queued for a random epic dungeon. Just as a DPS manually queued for Valindra would eventually get a tank and a healer.
The only part of the system that really does anything about encouraging certain roles to play is the role bonus, which will most often be for healers or tanks, giving them a bit of bonus AD when they queue for a random category that has a deficit of that role. I was referring to nerfing the 2 DC meta, I apologize for the lack of clarity. We don't have any intent to nerf DC generally. I spoke about how in the long run we'd like to make damage dealers focus more on dealing damage, and healers more on healing and generally everyone less on buffing and rebuffing, so depending on your feelings, those adjustments could be seen as a nerf, but those are longer term goals.
The more near term goal of ensuring that players don't want to bring 2 DCs to a 5 man (at least in the sense that it wouldn't actually be faster than bringing another class) won't be directed at making devoted cleric generally worse in any way. There's plenty of speculation that whatever adjustments are made will make one of the paragon paths "unplayable," but obviously, this is something we'll try to avoid when making adjustments. I talked a little bit about the algorithm in response to the question about "will I be more likely to get a popular queue" above. The algorithm for matching is largely unchanged with the addition of random queues, it's just that someone in a random queue is considered across multiple individual queues.
Basically, the oldest match group (even if it's just a single player) in any given queue gets priority. The queue system looks at everyone in every eligible queue every frame and attempts to make the best match giving the oldest groups priority. There's all sorts of hypothetical what if scenarios one can dream up where a partial group never gets matched, but we looked at the volume of people queuing and the size of the match groups they queued in and we're confident this sort of scenario won't arise.
It is true that in some cases you may get a match slightly slower in a group than as an individual. You might be queued as a duo of DPS, and be the oldest DPS in the queue, and a 4 person group queues only missing a single DPS, a solo DPS newer than you might get that spot before the queue system finds a tank, healer and 3rd DPS for you. I do want to emphasize though, with the volume of players queueing, you should be plenty fine queuing with any eligible configuration. There are definitely improvements that can be made to the random queue feature in the future. A mentoring queue that matches experienced players with those who are flagg
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
Member of Casual Dailies - XBox
It wasn't me there.....
You can't just keep quoting in my name and replying. People will think I have something useful to say, and we can't have that, I have a reputation to uphold !
They are currently giving skimish class reward, but placed in Epic Dungeon category, and their placement is purely cosmetic problem. But with RQ system, their category will matter.
So you want to move the game toward buffs and defbuffs being less important, and healing and dealing damage more...imho that is a very bad idea, and here are the reasons why I think so:
The most impactful one on queue culture(or run forming and doing culture), so the thing you claim you´re trying to improve, is: a players ability to heal and/or deal damage scales with what he has(gear, enchantments, companions, insignias, boons...) while the vast majoritiy of buffs and debuffs only require having the right powers at rank 4, and some recovery to keep them up. So the current system allows new or otherwise low geared players(who know how, and are willing to) a meaningful contribution to the succsess chance, speed and quality of a run. The system you seem to be aiming for would greatly reduce, or remove that ability(depending o how far you go), makeing the envoirement a lot more elitist/toxic.
sigh...out of time...will continue later xD
My alts have no business being in there. I have them good enough to do Shar and Dread Ring every week, but now I could just bring them in to be carried. Weee.
> To be clear, RQ players should not be considered "noobs" as they will have completed all campaigns and be above 11k. IN fact they'll most likely all be above 12k.
My reference to "noobs" (I dislike the term) was sarcasm toward the post before mine.
Demogorgon (Master)
Fangbreaker Island
Assault on Svardborg
Assault on Svardborg (Master)
Spellplague Caverns (Master)
Tomb of the Nine Gods"