Is this the new PVE?

Unknown

Although many of the recent changes have made me frustrated with this game, I still enjoy it and look forward to more changes. I believe that the developers are trying to move the game more towards what they had originally envisioned and I would like to see what that is. My concern now is that I will no longer be able to play PVE events. I was forced to quit the Thieves event due to the increased enemy levels to 230 and with this new even I run into the same problem. Is this the new PVE? If so I can no longer play it. Not that I don't want to play it, I do. I cannot beat these new stages. I cannot play anything besides PVP, which is still quite difficult. Most games I've played have difficulty levels such as easy, medium, hard and impossible. The new changes to the PVE in this game, at least on my end, are either hard or death. I beat the first stage on this new event but now the opposing teams are above 200. I have tried to beat it (fought until I was wiped out) five times hoping that it may drop in rank but it has not. So sad. was really looking forward to a PVE event I could at least play.

Unknown

KLoganR wrote:

Although many of the recent changes have made me frustrated with this game, I still enjoy it and look forward to more changes. I believe that the developers are trying to move the game more towards what they had originally envisioned and I would like to see what that is. My concern now is that I will no longer be able to play PVE events. I was forced to quit the Thieves event due to the increased enemy levels to 230 and with this new even I run into the same problem. Is this the new PVE? If so I can no longer play it. Not that I don't want to play it, I do. I cannot beat these new stages. I cannot play anything besides PVP, which is still quite difficult. Most games I've played have difficulty levels such as easy, medium, hard and impossible. The new changes to the PVE in this game, at least on my end, are either hard or death. I beat the first stage on this new event but now the opposing teams are above 200. I have tried to beat it (fought until I was wiped out) five times hoping that it may drop in rank but it has not. So sad. was really looking forward to a PVE event I could at least play.

The devs should not even take their "original vision" into consideration. No one gives a flying fat kitty about the devs vision. A good dev gives the player what the player wants not the player what the devs want.

Unknown

Regardless of the reason the game is going in the direction it is going I'm still wondering if this PVE event is the new norm? Is so the devs are forcing me to quit. Not because I don't like the direction they are going, but because I cannot play more then one level per PVE event. So unless I settle on just playing the PVP (which is not as fun for me) then I can only play one match a week.

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

The devs should not even take their "original vision" into consideration. No one gives a flying fat kitty about the devs vision. A good dev gives the player what the player wants not the player what the devs want.

No. This is incorrect. At best, you can say "A good dev gives it's target audience what it wants (which may not actually include all players)." But fact is A) What players think they want is not always what's best (or even what they actually really want), and Players have different, conflicting ideas about what they want.

Even within our limited subset of players here in the forum, there are some big differences in what some people think versus others. In the end, you need a vision to guide your decisions. Otherwise, you get game design by committee, which like most committee endeavors, is usually bad.

Unknown

Kyosokun wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

The devs should not even take their "original vision" into consideration. No one gives a flying fat kitty about the devs vision. A good dev gives the player what the player wants not the player what the devs want.

No. This is incorrect. At best, you can say "A good dev gives it's target audience what it wants (which may not actually include all players)." But fact is A) What players think they want is not always what's best (or even what they actually really want), and Players have different, conflicting ideas about what they want.

Even within our limited subset of players here in the forum, there are some big differences in what some people think versus others. In the end, you need a vision to guide your decisions. Otherwise, you get game design by committee, which like most committee endeavors, is usually bad.

But what if all I want is to play the game? Are you saying that may not be the best for me... actually, it is quite nice outside, and it's Friday.

Nemek

Kyosokun wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

The devs should not even take their "original vision" into consideration. No one gives a flying fat kitty about the devs vision. A good dev gives the player what the player wants not the player what the devs want.

No. This is incorrect. At best, you can say "A good dev gives it's target audience what it wants (which may not actually include all players)." But fact is A) What players think they want is not always what's best (or even what they actually really want), and Players have different, conflicting ideas about what they want.

Even within our limited subset of players here in the forum, there are some big differences in what some people think versus others. In the end, you need a vision to guide your decisions. Otherwise, you get game design by committee, which like most committee endeavors, is usually bad.

Agreed.

Unknown

What does "players" even mean? You can't please everyone.


This PVE matchmaking is flawed and was unnecessary imo. I still think they would do good to intoduce non-competetive PVE events, if not for the reason that they are much easier to implement and manage. I respect the devs for trying to innovate and present interesting mechanics, but sometimes just gotta go with sweet and simple.

Unknown

Kyosokun wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

The devs should not even take their "original vision" into consideration. No one gives a flying fat kitty about the devs vision. A good dev gives the player what the player wants not the player what the devs want.

No. This is incorrect. At best, you can say "A good dev gives it's target audience what it wants (which may not actually include all players)." But fact is A) What players think they want is not always what's best (or even what they actually really want), and Players have different, conflicting ideas about what they want.

Even within our limited subset of players here in the forum, there are some big differences in what some people think versus others. In the end, you need a vision to guide your decisions. Otherwise, you get game design by committee, which like most committee endeavors, is usually bad.

I think you're both right. There's an art to video games, and art takes commitment to a vision. But at the same time, once the game is released, it becomes a community endeavour.

On topic though, this is insane difficulty. I've said it before, but when you have one or two really hard stages, you're on the edge of your seat, your adrenaline gets up and you know that one little mistake or a bit of bad luck can end it all for you. But when every stage plays that way, it isn't fun or exciting any more. When you're always on the edge, when your heart is always racing, that's just stress. Why would anyone want stressful recreation?

Unknown

ihearthawthats wrote:

What does "players" even mean? You can't please everyone.


This PVE matchmaking is flawed and was unnecessary imo. I still think they would do good to intoduce non-competetive PVE events, if not for the reason that they are much easier to implement and manage. I respect the devs for trying to innovate and present interesting mechanics, but sometimes just gotta go with sweet and simple.

I like the idea of non-competitive PVE. Maybe even after the new event has been introduced after a competitive version. Add shorter versions of the events to the prologue.

Unknown

@rockmonster

+1

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

The devs should not even take their "original vision" into consideration. No one gives a flying fat kitty about the devs vision. A good dev gives the player what the player wants not the player what the devs want.

That's not true. I want a completely leveled Daredevil. The devs shouldn't give that to me. But that's a cheap quip. I'll make a broad point.

This game is the devs vision. They may choose to make changes to appease some players, but that would only be because the change fit into their vision. Complaints only have impact if they demonstrate why the game doesn't fit their vision. If they envision a game where there are no overpowering characters, that is what they are going to strive for. If they envision a game where boosts are only used occasionally, they will change the game to meet those conditions. The game is theirs. You might not approve, but that really matter to the game or the vision. The players are not in charge. A good Dev will listen to and consider possible changes to their vision, but it is their game in the end.

It's not uncommon for people of our generation to feel entitled to a voice in decisions being made. But we need to remember to separate our need to express our opinions and the expectation that our opinions should be followed.

That said, you do have the right to play the game as much as you want to. If the game isn't fun, put it down. I haven't been playing much since Rag was nerfed. Mostly because I want to see the other changes before I commit any more time into the game. Once all the changes are done, I'll see if the game fits into something I want to keep playing, but I can't make the Devs change the game to fit me.

Unknown

Blue Shoes wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

The devs should not even take their "original vision" into consideration. No one gives a flying fat kitty about the devs vision. A good dev gives the player what the player wants not the player what the devs want.

That's not true. I want a completely leveled Daredevil. The devs shouldn't give that to me. But that's a cheap quip. I'll make a broad point.

This game is the devs vision. They may choose to make changes to appease some players, but that would only be because the change fit into their vision. Complaints only have impact if they demonstrate why the game doesn't fit their vision. If they envision a game where there are no overpowering characters, that is what they are going to strive for. If they envision a game where boosts are only used occasionally, they will change the game to meet those conditions. The game is theirs. You might not approve, but that really matter to the game or the vision. The players are not in charge. A good Dev will listen to and consider possible changes to their vision, but it is their game in the end.

It's not uncommon for people of our generation to feel entitled to a voice in decisions being made. But we need to remember to separate our need to express our opinions and the expectation that our opinions should be followed.

That said, you do have the right to play the game as much as you want to. If the game isn't fun, put it down. I haven't been playing much since Rag was nerfed. Mostly because I want to see the other changes before I commit any more time into the game. Once all the changes are done, I'll see if the game fits into something I want to keep playing, but I can't make the Devs change the game to fit me.

I'm not disagreeing with the OP character part. I'm still on the bandwagon for
The weaker 70% shoulda been buffed instead of the stronger 30% getting nerfed.

My only 2 reasons I could come up with are :
Slower gameplay = more health pack usage = more $$$&
Faster and/or lazier to change the 30% instead of fix the 70%.

The main part I was thinking about when I made my original statement was that from what I've saw majority wants faster gameplay > slower gameplay and that's a huge issue.

Unknown

Blue Shoes wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

The devs should not even take their "original vision" into consideration. No one gives a flying fat kitty about the devs vision. A good dev gives the player what the player wants not the player what the devs want.

That's not true. I want a completely leveled Daredevil. The devs shouldn't give that to me. But that's a cheap quip. I'll make a broad point.

This game is the devs vision. They may choose to make changes to appease some players, but that would only be because the change fit into their vision. Complaints only have impact if they demonstrate why the game doesn't fit their vision. If they envision a game where there are no overpowering characters, that is what they are going to strive for. If they envision a game where boosts are only used occasionally, they will change the game to meet those conditions. The game is theirs. You might not approve, but that really matter to the game or the vision. The players are not in charge. A good Dev will listen to and consider possible changes to their vision, but it is their game in the end.

It's not uncommon for people of our generation to feel entitled to a voice in decisions being made. But we need to remember to separate our need to express our opinions and the expectation that our opinions should be followed.

That said, you do have the right to play the game as much as you want to. If the game isn't fun, put it down. I haven't been playing much since Rag was nerfed. Mostly because I want to see the other changes before I commit any more time into the game. Once all the changes are done, I'll see if the game fits into something I want to keep playing, but I can't make the Devs change the game to fit me.

You stated your opinion very well sir/mam.