The choice between one good choice, and one bad choice, is no choice at all. The choice between one good choice, an 5 or 10 bad choices, is fraud.
I think its even worse than that. Cryptic wants to make it so no choice is a bad choice. So essentially all the feats are bound to an encounter. You just use those encounters and that's it. The damage between having and not having is exactly the same, its just written to sound like you are going to be doing more damage but when it comes down to it, you aren't. So if you pick the "wrong" feats/encounters you are no different than a person who did pick the "right" feats/encounters. Pretty much just close your eyes and click the buttons and youll be just as good as anyone else with that class.
1) If everybody only has a bad choice then we are on a level playing field AND THAT IS GOOD.
2) Have you actually played on the preview server? I'm not finding that "encounters do no more damage regardless of feats" factor. I certainly found that picking the wrong feats gimped me.
3) The problem is that picking the right feats is pretty obvious so we still aren't going to have a lot of variety. But I haven't done a lot of experimentation.
Welcome to MMOs in general. Some (awesome and completely monomaniacal) people work out the best build, and everybody copies it. You can have as complex a system as you want, but that's what comes out.
All a complex system does is give you 1) the false impression you have a choice 2) the very good chance you just gimped yourself. 3) the excuse to complain that your "awesome" build would work if only the devs listened to you.
What you say is true but it doesn't NEED to be that way. Its just lazy development game concepts that cause one build tree that excells over all the others because of other dynamics, animation issues, casting time delays, or rotation hangups. But to prevent telling you stuff you already know, it doesn't need to be that way.
Sure, give me an example of a MMO that does all that. That's still alive.
1) If everybody only has a bad choice then we are on a level playing field AND THAT IS GOOD.
2) Have you actually played on the preview server? I'm not finding that "encounters do no more damage regardless of feats" factor. I certainly found that picking the wrong feats gimped me.
3) The problem is that picking the right feats is pretty obvious so we still aren't going to have a lot of variety. But I haven't done a lot of experimentation.
Yes Ive played preview. What a silly question to ask. How would I even know to write out my experience? And yes, ive tested the builds for the paragons. Even the arbiter deals less dmg than the Devout Cleric even though the Devout is suppose to be the healer and the Arbiter is suppose to be the dps. The reason the Devout does more dmg is because of three factors, one feat allows it do deal more dmg and the other is the ability for the cleric to move while channeling divinity which the arbiter cant do, it must stand still for a second to channel. The third reason is that the Devout has feats that reduce the casting costs for the encounters so it can cast more dmging spells vs the Arbiter causing its dps to be greater. And the dmg between both is exactly the same base dmg so since the Devout can cast more spells and move it deals more dmg than the Arbiter.
1) If everybody only has a bad choice then we are on a level playing field AND THAT IS GOOD.
2) Have you actually played on the preview server? I'm not finding that "encounters do no more damage regardless of feats" factor. I certainly found that picking the wrong feats gimped me.
3) The problem is that picking the right feats is pretty obvious so we still aren't going to have a lot of variety. But I haven't done a lot of experimentation.
Yes Ive played preview. What a silly question to ask. How would I even know to write out my experience? And yes, ive tested the builds for the paragons. Even the arbiter deals less dmg than the Devout Cleric even though the Devout is suppose to be the healer and the Arbiter is suppose to be the dps. The reason the Devout does more dmg is because of three factors, one feat allows it do deal more dmg and the other is the ability for the cleric to move while channeling divinity which the arbiter cant do, it must stand still for a second to channel. The third reason is that the Devout has feats that reduce the casting costs for the encounters so it can cast more dmging spells vs the Arbiter causing its dps to be greater. And the dmg between both is exactly the same base dmg so since the Devout can cast more spells and move it deals more dmg than the Arbiter.
Hang on, doesn't that mean that the feats DO affect the damage of your encounters? Or did I misunderstand something from your previous post? I'm taking what you are saying verbatim btw, since I only alt a Cleric.
Hang on, doesn't that mean that the feats DO affect the damage of your encounters? Or did I misunderstand something from your previous post? I'm taking what you are saying verbatim btw, since I only alt a Cleric.
Well the example I gave for the cleric only indirectly does but unintended. The ability for the Devout to move while channeling is a feat choice but this indirectly allows the Devout to attack and move while channeling divinity for its next attack. The arbiter cant do this. Also the Devout has a feat that reduces the casting cost so it can spam more attacks before draining divinity completely. It means if you are using a damaging spell it can chain more of those vs the Arbiter. But isn't the arbiter suppose to be the dps? So yes indirectly the Devout has higher damage per second because it can move while channeling and reduced spell cost.
However the dmg for 1 spell is exactly the same for Aribiter and Devout. The reason the Devout has higher dps is because it can chain that spell more than the Arbiter. So the ONLY way to balance this is to make a convoluted dmg reduction on the Devout. You make it so it deals less dmg per spell but that is just plain silly. It defeats the point in even selecting the feats to begin with. Its like you give it dmg bonus and then behind the scene you put in a stactic dmg reduction into the equation to balance them out.
The only way to make this make sense is to switch these feats. Give the Arbiter the ability to move while channeling and the reduced casting cost of the spells. Anything short of that is a convoluted fix.
Hang on, doesn't that mean that the feats DO affect the damage of your encounters? Or did I misunderstand something from your previous post? I'm taking what you are saying verbatim btw, since I only alt a Cleric.
Well the example I gave for the cleric only indirectly does but unintended. The ability for the Devout to move while channeling is a feat choice but this indirectly allows the Devout to attack and move while channeling divinity for its next attack. The arbiter cant do this. Also the Devout has a feat that reduces the casting cost so it can spam more attacks before draining divinity completely. It means if you are using a damaging spell it can chain more of those vs the Arbiter. But isn't the arbiter suppose to be the dps? So yes indirectly the Devout has higher damage per second because it can move while channeling and reduced spell cost.
However the dmg for 1 spell is exactly the same for Aribiter and Devout. The reason the Devout has higher dps is because it can chain that spell more than the Arbiter. So the ONLY way to balance this is to make a convoluted dmg reduction on the Devout. You make it so it deals less dmg per spell but that is just plain silly. It defeats the point in even selecting the feats to begin with. Its like you give it dmg bonus and then behind the scene you put in a stactic dmg reduction into the equation to balance them out.
The only way to make this make sense is to switch these feats. Give the Arbiter the ability to move while channeling and the reduced casting cost of the spells. Anything short of that is a convoluted fix.
Well, sounds like you know about the cleric. You should send your suggestion to the Feedback forums. You can never tell. Maybe they'll actually do something
Well, sounds like you know about the cleric. You should send your suggestion to the Feedback forums. You can never tell. Maybe they'll actually do something
I'm worried that if I say anything they will just make the convoluted fix or reduce the effect of the feats more. Like the reduction feat only works on 1 encounter or something silly like that. They wont fix it the way it should be fixed. They will just put a bandaid on a bleeding artery.
Well, sounds like you know about the cleric. You should send your suggestion to the Feedback forums. You can never tell. Maybe they'll actually do something
I'm worried that if I say anything they will just make the convoluted fix or reduce the effect of the feats more. Like the reduction feat only works on 1 encounter or something silly like that. They wont fix it the way it should be fixed. They will just put a bandaid on a bleeding artery.
Well, unfortunately, that was what the game already was. That's why they are doing Mod16.
Let's be honest. The problems with the game as it stood were insurmountable. They are nuking the whole thing and starting from scratch. Time will tell if this was a good move or not. But it was a move that had to be taken. I personally thought they should leave it for another 6 months of testing, but that would just mean the game is in hiatus for 6 months longer. At which point, it would be dead.
Well, unfortunately, that was what the game already was. That's why they are doing Mod16.
Let's be honest. The problems with the game as it stood were insurmountable. They are nuking the whole thing and starting from scratch. Time will tell if this was a good move or not. But it was a move that had to be taken. I personally thought they should leave it for another 6 months of testing, but that would just mean the game is in hiatus for 6 months longer. At which point, it would be dead.
Agreed. But I feel like the right arm had been chopped off for mod 11-15 and instead of addressing that injury they now think chopping the left arm off will fix everything.
Many players had suggestions for how to save the game but even those well thought out and polite suggestions were ignored or worse, deleted to prevent players backing them and forcing their arm.
I had even suggested that they take the older mod items and allow them to be exalted up to current standards that way players had a bigger pool of choices for weapons but that post was considered "Inflammatory" and was deleted after receiving several likes.
I love speed running Cloak tower when farming AD. I don't wanna spend 8 hrs farming 100k(on console). I can get Cloak Tower done in under 10min with my CW. Intermediate qs with my SW/TR take about the same amount of time. And thats how it should be when farming in low level content. However, it usually takes 45min for an adavanced q with my OP(hybrid more or less) and I have seen FBI take 1.5hrs. that's a bit long IMHO for farms. 30min for an advanced q, not bad. 45min I can tolerat, but 1.5hrs? Maybe for an exp, which I have yet to do CRL as it's seems like now that I have it unlocked(in the campaign, I've had the min IL for it for 4 months now) no one wants to run anymore.
Why are you doing Cloak Tower for AD? HOW are you farming Cloak Tower for AD? I would have thought just farming Demogorgon would be better. It takes barely 10 minutes, you get enuf Fareezes to get a key - on top of the freebie reward chest you get anyways. Maybe its different on Console but on PC I usually don't wait very long either. Each chest should get you anywhere from 6 to 10k RAD.
Demogorgon does take 10 mins. + the 15 - 30 minutes you wait for it to pop. That is if you queue directly. If you go thru random queue, you might get Demo on the first try, or you might have to run 2 - 5 other things before it pops. I have done both. You would think that since Demo is one of the better rAD makers, from a cost/benefit ratio perspective it would be more popular.
Are you talking about on PC? Most Demo queues I've been in rarely take more than 5 min to pop. Unless I'm playing during the US deadtime. If I queue random, I can get anything and have to waste time doing them. I nearly always make my 100k a day limit within an hour or two of trying.
Yep. I play on PC. It usually takes me longer to make 100k than my available daily play time. I usually queue directly for Demo when I first log in. more often than not I have time to hit the mailbox, the professions vendor and my workshop, and one of the campaign weeklies before it pops. Sometimes it will pop before I finish Portal to Tuern, etc. in the middle, but I finish about half the time.
I love speed running Cloak tower when farming AD. I don't wanna spend 8 hrs farming 100k(on console). I can get Cloak Tower done in under 10min with my CW. Intermediate qs with my SW/TR take about the same amount of time. And thats how it should be when farming in low level content. However, it usually takes 45min for an adavanced q with my OP(hybrid more or less) and I have seen FBI take 1.5hrs. that's a bit long IMHO for farms. 30min for an advanced q, not bad. 45min I can tolerat, but 1.5hrs? Maybe for an exp, which I have yet to do CRL as it's seems like now that I have it unlocked(in the campaign, I've had the min IL for it for 4 months now) no one wants to run anymore.
Why are you doing Cloak Tower for AD? HOW are you farming Cloak Tower for AD? I would have thought just farming Demogorgon would be better. It takes barely 10 minutes, you get enuf Fareezes to get a key - on top of the freebie reward chest you get anyways. Maybe its different on Console but on PC I usually don't wait very long either. Each chest should get you anywhere from 6 to 10k RAD.
Demogorgon does take 10 mins. + the 15 - 30 minutes you wait for it to pop. That is if you queue directly. If you go thru random queue, you might get Demo on the first try, or you might have to run 2 - 5 other things before it pops. I have done both. You would think that since Demo is one of the better rAD makers, from a cost/benefit ratio perspective it would be more popular.
Are you talking about on PC? Most Demo queues I've been in rarely take more than 5 min to pop. Unless I'm playing during the US deadtime. If I queue random, I can get anything and have to waste time doing them. I nearly always make my 100k a day limit within an hour or two of trying.
Yep. I play on PC. It usually takes me longer to make 100k than my available daily play time. I usually queue directly for Demo when I first log in. more often than not I have time to hit the mailbox, the professions vendor and my workshop, and one of the campaign weeklies before it pops. Sometimes it will pop before I finish Portal to Tuern, etc. in the middle, but I finish about half the time.
That's wierd. I'm in Australia so my playtimes are usually out of synch with the main population. I would still get a Demo run within 10 minutes tops. Granted its slowing down atm, simply cuz of all the ppl on preview server but previously, it wouldn't take me more than an hour and half to get 100k done.
Disagree. For me, the path the game on before was ALL bad - but not now! As a player since the beginning, playing only one class that was well outside of the meta since TONG, this change was my "make or break".
A big change had to happen, did, and, to be honest, the ride was far less bumpy than I expected. Healing is a thing again. Tanking is a thing again, and it's ok to bring any of the DPS classes. This was where Neverwinter lost it's way, and now, it's finding it again.
Of course, there is fallout. People who used to boringly zerg content, now have to play more as a team. Ignoring the red on the ground is important again. Bothering to learn the mechanics of runs is important again.
If you think about how the game was going, Neverwinter was effectively, slowly, selecting players who got fun out of "beating up little kids in the play ground". Really, content was just too easy to smash, and who gets long term fun from doing that all the time?
I'm pretty sure that most of us wanted a fun challenge - but how was that going to happen? It was just too difficult to create challenging content, that came with rewards, and some how achieve class balance so that it was fair. It needed a really serious overhaul, and I'm personally impressed with what they've achieved. The Devs promised that it would be far easier to adjust and balance moving forward - and THEY PROVED THEMSELVES RIGHT! Classes are much better balanced, viable across the board, and you've seen how quickly they swung difficulty across the board, when people cried that they weren't feeling powerful enough anymore.
Seems to me that players who stayed have come to appreciate how the bumpy ride is settling down, and if there's any justice for effort, word will get out that Neverwinter is bcoming a fair and enjoyable challenge again, leading to a player in-flux.
I'm sure many have decided to wait and see on mod 17, and that will be Neverwinter's big test.
I think Steam numbers are fairly reliable, there should be little reason for the percentage of the NW players using steam to vary much over time.
You need to compare year-by-year to allow for seasonal variations. Also remember there are big sources of error here like campaigns from Cryptic to recruit more players.
Average player numbers: April 2018->June 2018: 2465->3505. A 42% gain. April 2019->June 2019: 2022->1599. A 20% loss.
Rather than getting a boost from a new mod, the game has suffered a major setback.
In 'recent' times there was a peak in max online in July 2018 at 5685. Max online in June 2018 was 2632 - a 54% decline.
If NW *really* lost 54% of the players and presumably 54% of the income it is pretty dramatic and gives reason to fear for the future of the game.
lukejones77Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 282Arc User
There are many indicators, including Steam, that the player base is in recsession. The question is, is it "ALL bad"? Is this a losing battle, or a lost war?
There's been a clear decline over time, and mod 16 was certainly disruptive, with some players either leaving, or waiting for the disruption to settle down.
For me, the expectation is that this was "the battle we had to have", and not loss of the war.
Right now, once you've sorted through the disruption, there's not actually a lot to do, not really much game play to be had, aside from repeditive runs of ME and LOMM - and not much inceptive to run those once you have your gear.
For the war, though, there's good reason for optimism in the near future, with quite a few carrots on offer: - New recipes to make preofessions worth getting back into. - New content in mod 17 - tailored to the state of a settled down mod 16. - Possibly PvP, whith a chance it might actually work now, or at least not screw up PvE trying to get it to work. - Adjustments to rewards, now that the relative strengths and gameplay chasing value of refining enchants, getting latest gear, getting mounts, getting companions soirted. - Next Stronghold iteration on the way - FINALLY class balance, close enough that nobody is left unviable!
So, hopefully that was a sacrificial battle, and the war is looking in good shape. Letting players go dormant always a risk, though, and it could go bad. Having players hang around and bad mouth everything? Poison.
It's ALL Bad... 'DumbedDown' all the classes, skills are wrecked, stats are messed up, gear is junk and etc. etc. etc. The decline in Steam players is an indication that is also backed up by the MASSIVE decline of players in my guild & alliance.
Also all the 'damage-control' with sales and bonus stuff being pushed out is another indication. Not to mention the new race ... 'wow'... how pointless, release a new class if you want people to 'jump-4-joy'.
I started playing since Beta and this is the longest I haven't played properly. I forgave you long ago for not having servers closer to AUS, but you have now wrecked my game Cryptic T_T
0
adinosiiMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 4,294Arc User
Not all. For example, all classes are now viable. Previously certain classes were basically "not wanted", but this has improved a lot. Sure, this meant killing off the "buff-focused" meta, but that just had to be done. Removal of ID scrolls and the ward use cap are nice QoL improvements.
Partially true. Character creation was dumbed down, but my theory is that this is a deliberate effort to make the game more appealing to a new "generation" of players.
I'm not sure what you mean. Powers, feats and boons....you can make an argument for those being, well, not perfectly designed, but skills? Those seem fine.
The initial stats (ability scores, like INT, STR and so on) are pretty much a disaster, yes. "Stats" in the sense of Armor Penetration, Defense and so on are actually fine - the basic system of stats and counterstats is actually pretty decent and a good way to keep the gameplay reasonably balanced.
Not junk, maybe, but badly designed, with no thought given to the big picture, and nobody asking questions like "who would want to use this piece of gear" and "are we adding gear that is suitable for all roles and classes". We have too many fiascos like the extremely badly designed Successor gear.
The decline in Steam players is an indication that is also backed up by the MASSIVE decline of players in my guild & alliance.
Well, there are a number of reasons for the lower player numbers. One is of course that many players gave up and left the game after Mod 16 was released in an unfinished state. Another issue is that the number of players online at any given time has dropped significantly because the average playtime of players has gotten shorter.
For example, I used to play 2-3 hours per day....now I just log in, do my 3 MEs and log out - there is nothing else that is worthwhile for me to do, and I'm not alone.
@lukejones77 all games are in decline on Steam, I totally agree the game has suffered from premature rebirth, but overall came out ok. Not much better just ok. Let's talk about Steam stats, since we don't get stats from Arc or PWE, not even CS themselves want to tells us real numbers. Using Steam as a "focus group" works to some degree. However most people are looking at only this data;
This 3 month picture showing the cheese sliding off the cracker at the far right.
Few people take the time to compare it to the sister game Star Trek;
This 3 month picture looks like the whole company is in decline?
But fewer yet compare it to other titles by other companies;
I have shown here on the forums, time after time, that all MMO games bleed out players. The players get bored or find new games until you are left with a minority of loyalists. No offense but Champions is one of these games. While Champions is still fun to play, it has a very small group keeping it going. Another is Guild Wars (the original) they announced no new content back in 2014 and yet there are thousands who still inhabit the game and will not leave it. They are still playable and if they didn't make money, the companies would have shut them down already. I agree with @adinosii the summer is upon us, but in September the numbers will rise when people return home and plan more indoor activities.
No matter what population should not matter, what you need to show is in the accounting department. Show us the profit and loss.
It is the nature of the beast that all games decline in player attendance until they are terminated. New games pop up at regular intervals, and since the player mass is finite, the new games will cannibalize the old.
However, these games are often fairly cheap to operate as long as they do not get new content. It is very rare that a game is actually terminated.
We can talk of two deaths for an mmorpg really: * The little death, when no more new content is offered and the development staff moved off it. This will usually mean a further drop in game attendance, as people need regular updates to stay interested. * The actual death, when servers are turned off.
The big question for NW is how long the game can defend its dev staff.
For Neverwinter, when new content stops coming out, the game ends. WotC requires 3 mods a year for the license. Cryptic can make smaller modules (17?) but they can't stop making them.
"We have always been at war with Dread Vault" ~ Little Brother
For Neverwinter, when new content stops coming out, the game ends. WotC requires 3 mods a year for the license. Cryptic can make smaller modules (17?) but they can't stop making them.
Such issues are always subject to negotiation. Nothing is set in stone. If WotC still get some income even if NW is in mothballs, they very well could let the game roll on with no updates.
0
adinosiiMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 4,294Arc User
Such issues are always subject to negotiation. Nothing is set in stone. If WotC still get some income even if NW is in mothballs, they very well could let the game roll on with no updates.
That would depend on the details of their contract with WotC....we don't know. What we do know is that they have been reassigning people to their new game, and simplifying things, clearly so that the game can be maintained by a smaller team. How long will that continue - presumably as long as it is profitable.
Considering what Wizards of the Coast allows to be licensed as Dungeons & Dragons games, I think they have pretty mundane standards. Wizards of the Coast purchased TSR, the original Gary Gygax company that created Dungeons & Dragons, in 1997. Wizards of the Coast was acquired by Hasbro in 1999. As a result, the subsidiary Hasbro Interactive gained the right to use the Dungeons & Dragons game brand in their video game products. So I think it has to go through Hasbro? You know them as the guys who green lighted...
Since 1999 these online titles emerged; Dungeons & Dragons Online: Eberron made by Turbine, Inc. in 2006 Neverwinter Online made by Cryptic Studios in 2013 Warriors of Waterdeep made by Ludia in 2018
Some titles WoC planned but got scrapped; Dungeons & Dragons: Tiny Adventures & Heroes of Neverwinter on Facebook
There is the Capcom game on Steam; Dungeons & Dragons: Chronicles of Mystara
Comments
2) Have you actually played on the preview server? I'm not finding that "encounters do no more damage regardless of feats" factor. I certainly found that picking the wrong feats gimped me.
3) The problem is that picking the right feats is pretty obvious so we still aren't going to have a lot of variety. But I haven't done a lot of experimentation.
However the dmg for 1 spell is exactly the same for Aribiter and Devout. The reason the Devout has higher dps is because it can chain that spell more than the Arbiter. So the ONLY way to balance this is to make a convoluted dmg reduction on the Devout. You make it so it deals less dmg per spell but that is just plain silly. It defeats the point in even selecting the feats to begin with. Its like you give it dmg bonus and then behind the scene you put in a stactic dmg reduction into the equation to balance them out.
The only way to make this make sense is to switch these feats. Give the Arbiter the ability to move while channeling and the reduced casting cost of the spells. Anything short of that is a convoluted fix.
Let's be honest. The problems with the game as it stood were insurmountable. They are nuking the whole thing and starting from scratch. Time will tell if this was a good move or not. But it was a move that had to be taken. I personally thought they should leave it for another 6 months of testing, but that would just mean the game is in hiatus for 6 months longer. At which point, it would be dead.
Many players had suggestions for how to save the game but even those well thought out and polite suggestions were ignored or worse, deleted to prevent players backing them and forcing their arm.
I had even suggested that they take the older mod items and allow them to be exalted up to current standards that way players had a bigger pool of choices for weapons but that post was considered "Inflammatory" and was deleted after receiving several likes.
Over 18% decline in players BAD...
https://steamcharts.com/app/109600
(And that's just on Steam)
As a player since the beginning, playing only one class that was well outside of the meta since TONG, this change was my "make or break".
A big change had to happen, did, and, to be honest, the ride was far less bumpy than I expected.
Healing is a thing again. Tanking is a thing again, and it's ok to bring any of the DPS classes.
This was where Neverwinter lost it's way, and now, it's finding it again.
Of course, there is fallout. People who used to boringly zerg content, now have to play more as a team. Ignoring the red on the ground is important again. Bothering to learn the mechanics of runs is important again.
If you think about how the game was going, Neverwinter was effectively, slowly, selecting players who got fun out of "beating up little kids in the play ground". Really, content was just too easy to smash, and who gets long term fun from doing that all the time?
I'm pretty sure that most of us wanted a fun challenge - but how was that going to happen? It was just too difficult to create challenging content, that came with rewards, and some how achieve class balance so that it was fair.
It needed a really serious overhaul, and I'm personally impressed with what they've achieved.
The Devs promised that it would be far easier to adjust and balance moving forward - and THEY PROVED THEMSELVES RIGHT!
Classes are much better balanced, viable across the board, and you've seen how quickly they swung difficulty across the board, when people cried that they weren't feeling powerful enough anymore.
Seems to me that players who stayed have come to appreciate how the bumpy ride is settling down, and if there's any justice for effort, word will get out that Neverwinter is bcoming a fair and enjoyable challenge again, leading to a player in-flux.
I'm sure many have decided to wait and see on mod 17, and that will be Neverwinter's big test.
You need to compare year-by-year to allow for seasonal variations. Also remember there are big sources of error here like campaigns from Cryptic to recruit more players.
Average player numbers:
April 2018->June 2018: 2465->3505. A 42% gain.
April 2019->June 2019: 2022->1599. A 20% loss.
Rather than getting a boost from a new mod, the game has suffered a major setback.
In 'recent' times there was a peak in max online in July 2018 at 5685.
Max online in June 2018 was 2632 - a 54% decline.
If NW *really* lost 54% of the players and presumably 54% of the income it is pretty dramatic and gives reason to fear for the future of the game.
The question is, is it "ALL bad"? Is this a losing battle, or a lost war?
There's been a clear decline over time, and mod 16 was certainly disruptive, with some players either leaving, or waiting for the disruption to settle down.
For me, the expectation is that this was "the battle we had to have", and not loss of the war.
Right now, once you've sorted through the disruption, there's not actually a lot to do, not really much game play to be had, aside from repeditive runs of ME and LOMM - and not much inceptive to run those once you have your gear.
For the war, though, there's good reason for optimism in the near future, with quite a few carrots on offer:
- New recipes to make preofessions worth getting back into.
- New content in mod 17 - tailored to the state of a settled down mod 16.
- Possibly PvP, whith a chance it might actually work now, or at least not screw up PvE trying to get it to work.
- Adjustments to rewards, now that the relative strengths and gameplay chasing value of refining enchants, getting latest gear, getting mounts, getting companions soirted.
- Next Stronghold iteration on the way
- FINALLY class balance, close enough that nobody is left unviable!
So, hopefully that was a sacrificial battle, and the war is looking in good shape.
Letting players go dormant always a risk, though, and it could go bad.
Having players hang around and bad mouth everything? Poison.
'DumbedDown' all the classes, skills are wrecked, stats are messed up, gear is junk and etc. etc. etc.
The decline in Steam players is an indication that is also backed up by the MASSIVE decline of players in my guild & alliance.
Also all the 'damage-control' with sales and bonus stuff being pushed out is another indication.
Not to mention the new race ... 'wow'... how pointless, release a new class if you want people to 'jump-4-joy'.
I started playing since Beta and this is the longest I haven't played properly.
I forgave you long ago for not having servers closer to AUS, but you have now wrecked my game Cryptic T_T
For example, I used to play 2-3 hours per day....now I just log in, do my 3 MEs and log out - there is nothing else that is worthwhile for me to do, and I'm not alone.
Then of course it's the season and the weather -
This 3 month picture showing the cheese sliding off the cracker at the far right.
Few people take the time to compare it to the sister game Star Trek;
This 3 month picture looks like the whole company is in decline?
But fewer yet compare it to other titles by other companies;
We see a better picture that other games show the same graph and the same decline.
I have shown here on the forums, time after time, that all MMO games bleed out players. The players get bored or find new games until you are left with a minority of loyalists. No offense but Champions is one of these games. While Champions is still fun to play, it has a very small group keeping it going. Another is Guild Wars (the original) they announced no new content back in 2014 and yet there are thousands who still inhabit the game and will not leave it. They are still playable and if they didn't make money, the companies would have shut them down already. I agree with @adinosii the summer is upon us, but in September the numbers will rise when people return home and plan more indoor activities.
No matter what population should not matter, what you need to show is in the accounting department. Show us the profit and loss.
However, these games are often fairly cheap to operate as long as they do not get new content. It is very rare that a game is actually terminated.
We can talk of two deaths for an mmorpg really:
* The little death, when no more new content is offered and the development staff moved off it. This will usually mean a further drop in game attendance, as people need regular updates to stay interested.
* The actual death, when servers are turned off.
The big question for NW is how long the game can defend its dev staff.
Wizards of the Coast purchased TSR, the original Gary Gygax company that created Dungeons & Dragons, in 1997. Wizards of the Coast was acquired by Hasbro in 1999. As a result, the subsidiary Hasbro Interactive gained the right to use the Dungeons & Dragons game brand in their video game products. So I think it has to go through Hasbro? You know them as the guys who green lighted...
Since 1999 these online titles emerged;
Dungeons & Dragons Online: Eberron made by Turbine, Inc. in 2006
Neverwinter Online made by Cryptic Studios in 2013
Warriors of Waterdeep made by Ludia in 2018
Some titles WoC planned but got scrapped;
Dungeons & Dragons: Tiny Adventures & Heroes of Neverwinter on Facebook
There is the Capcom game on Steam; Dungeons & Dragons: Chronicles of Mystara