I think it’s also worth considering here that the ones asking for these changes are in the minority. That is to say a small amount of the total playerbase will get to/clear Gladiator Crucible 150-170 and an even smaller number will learn strategies for it and play it multiple times to compete. These are also arguably the ones most effected by negative mutators or CC as cutting down as many seconds as possible is more crucial to a Crucible runner than the average player that’s just farming Crucible for gear.
I’m not saying your voices shouldn’t be heard - everyone’s should be. But it is worth weighing in how much effort should go into making some of the changes and adjustments proposed in the first post versus how many people will benefit.
True. But while we (I mean Crate) have data on how many people play what mode, we don’t have as much data on player preferences and stuff like that except for the whatever is posted here on in other forums. There’s a reason Zantai himself wants hard data when feedback is offered because not every data can be accessed by them. Meaning the vocal minority actually technically has more bearing on how Zantai handles the game with regards to some things due to that data.
And no, just because you’re not part of the established minority or because you’re part of the people who exclusively play Normal, you’re not automatically part of the “majority”. Because it will matter depending on the specific case. Are you in the majority if you think terrify is useful in ultimate? Who knows? Maybe you are, maybe you’re not. But there’s no way to know that especially since GD is an offline game and Crate can’t gather hard data on all builds.
Proposal: “Let’s give others optional improvements so that everyone is happy.”
And the classic response: “NO! ONLY I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HAPPY AND I’M ONLY HAPPY WHEN IT SUCKS FOR THE OTHERS.”
What does this and your screenshots have to do with anything? Please argue on point or not at all. Which one of my proposed changes is wrong and why exactly?
All I did was to express myself about how it felt to try an come back to the game, and what could have been improved to make it better, WITHOUT changing anything for anyone who likes things the way they are.
That’s slightly ironic coming from the person who typed…
What was your point again? Oh. Right. You didn’t have one which is why you completely and utterly whiffed on by my own comment about “what was your point?” on that bit and instead chose to deflect with this bit of comedy instead.
I’m not fighting for or against because, quite frankly, in the vast majority of scenarios I am perfectly fine with whichever way the winds blow on any changes Crate (Zantai) makes. It is exceedingly rare that any decisions they make on changes bothers me in any way that I would feel the need to post about it.
I apologize if I was unclear. The point was Crucible was a paid DLC so it should not be overlooked when making QoL improvements. SR received an addition of Death Waystones aimed at veteran players who want to test the limits of their builds. Yet, Crucible remains extremely user unfriendly when it comes to its function as testing grounds for builds.
Then report it. I wish you the best of luck portraying it as any of those things.
And so was FG (home of SR)… and FG’s requirement - AoM. The base game also requires money. In fact, there is no aspect of the game that allows you to play it -legally- without some money upfront.
Surprised nobody has mentioned Toughened. Is 70% more health not a huge issue? Definitely feels like that for me when I play SR.
Mutators are one of those things I see used across multiple games and I will never understand why do developers think they add anything to their games, other than pure annoyance. Grim Dawn’s mutations are kind of tame compared to others but they can be extremely irritating when you’re trying to measure a build’s performance and you want a neutral setting. Other times they’re downright crippling as is the case whenever I play my aether Battlemage and get hit with a +15% aether resistance mutation. Not fun. Never will be.
I agree. But I fail to see how it refutes or comments on my main argument in our discussion: Both FG and Crucible are paid DLC but SR got Death Waystones aimed at elite players to test their builds without loot but Crucible got no such QoL improvements since selectable stages.
I also fail to see where the opposition to my proposal comes from. All these improvement are OPTIONAL. They would not in any way alter the current experience of already satisfied players.
This is perhaps an unclear description. It means 70% over base health from Normal. On Ultimate enemies already have like 600% (iirc).
I never came into this opposing any thing. I replied to Archmagister whereupon you replied to my response to him and put yourself down this path with me.
Case-in-point:
Also, hilarious that you cried about my use of…
…as somehow being offensive when you have been offending from your very first reply to me:
How do you choose to defend yourself and the insults you are clearly aiming this way? Do you feel some type of way about me? Do you have certain words you wish to have with me? Anything to get off your chest?
I ignored them when you first tossed them out but keep playing with me ya1 and see where we wind up.
I consider criticizing other people and their ideas just for the sake of it, without any counterarguments or counterproposals and sometimes without understanding their points - as has been shown in this thread not necessarily by you @powbam - trolling. If someone contaminates a discussion with such behavior, it isn’t unreasonable to call it out, because there is no other remedy to trolling. Save ignoring it completely.
As for the chances of these ideas to ever be implemented, which started this whole discussion between us, I already said I understood that they are very low to none. But this does not take away from the validity of these ideas nor gives you the right to ridicule them.
As for the ideas themselves, I am yet to hear a single argument why they might be wrong. Here they are again:
Only the third one could possibly create conflict with people who want no changes. The others are totally optional and very QoL. There have been some other good ones by others. The premise itself does remain valid and was agreed with by many users here: some mutators can be very unfun for people using Crucible competitively or as testing grounds for their builds.
Nowhere did I ridicule any of your ideas and you didn’t start lobbing the troll word around until you replied to me, sooooo. Neither was I even paying you much of any mind on my first post. You made your own bed with your direct replies to me and brought yourself down that path on your own.
Again, I have no issues with anything in the OP - nor would I much care if they were, or weren’t, implemented.
Not long, if it doesn’t get back to the topic. I expect Zan’s gleaned all he needs to know from what’s been posted already so unless anyone has something new to add to the conversation don’t bother to post here.
That’s what I said. If all these Ideas are implemented as OPTIONAL (and the options taken are clearly visible in the ‘competitive’ Videos) , then… do what thee must.
As I said, use a mod that removes mutators in crucible, it’s a real thing now. Maybe even push this idea further and make a big competitive mod that changes everything to be more stable, like removing fear, confuse and knockback mechanics. Both sides would be happy that way. GD is basically at the end of its development, it’s time for community patches.
