Grim Dawn FAQ - Compilation of Dev Feedback

eisprinzessin · June 2, 2020, 2:31pm

Table of Contents

Certain questions pop up every now and then, and while Crate has answered them over the years, the replies have been buried in the forums and can be hard to retrieve. But not anymore!

We will extend this compilation as we go along. If you find anything missing or a better quote, please click my avatar to message me.

A note to newcomers and sporadid visitors

We are eager to get your feedback, but if your request falls into any of the below categories, the developers have decided upon this long ago. If starting another thread would make them change their mind, then any of the previous requests would already have achieved that.

On the one hand you might have a legitimate concern though. On the other we have often noticed that people are still in the adoption phase for Grim Dawn and come with expectations from other games, Grim Dawn does not live up to. (And we would rather that you enjoy Grim Dawn for its strengths.) Where do you fall in this spectrum?

From experience we can understand you and assess your request better, if you share with us where you come from - i.e. describe the issue and what frustrates you - instead of asking for a solution in a vacuum. This way we can point you to existing solutions or advise you how we handle things.

A note to our forum regulars

Not everybody will find this thread straight away, so expect that the undying topics will come up as usual. Be a dear and point them to this thread, if the issue is covered here. If you feel like engaging with the user, ask them for anything you miss to understand and help them. Otherwise:

Reading tips

I have aimed for concise and digestible sections, so that the quotes focus on the main point. If you wish you can expand them by clicking their upper corners or go to the thread.

Especially medierra often said much more and shared interesting insights. But some of his oldest posts got deleted and I had to salvage a few of his statements from other threads, where I had quoted him.

If I have linked medea’s posts, then this is because Crate shared some details only via stream, and the only remaining written record are medea’s transcripts. Neither of us is a Crate employee.

eisprinzessin · June 17, 2020, 1:41am

Crate Entertainment News

Crate has no plans for a third Grim Dawn expansion

They might eventually continue the story in Grim Dawn 2

Status of Grim Dawn's Xbox port

A quick heads up on the Xbox Port, as that has been a topic of some discussion in the comments section of late.

As you may have guessed by it now being 2020, our original estimate of releasing the port in 2019 may have been a tad ambitious.

But the good news is: the Xbox port is 100% still coming and the extra time it’s had in development is only going to result in a better experience for you as all of the PC version’s major content updates will now be included right away!

In the process of working on certification requirements, we felt that additional optimization would ensure that the game you will be seeing on console will look and feel as awesome as it does on PC, without compromising on visuals and gameplay by removing objects from playable scenes.

The upside of going above and beyond on the engine work is that performance will be even better on both console and PC!

Stay tuned in the coming months as we approach the finish line and the Xbox port is in your hands!

Source: https://www.facebook.com/GrimDawn/posts/3149808828366957 - Date: Jan 13, 2020

A quick update on the Xbox port, since so many are asking about it:

Yes, it is still coming and nearing completion.

We’re in the semi-final phase of going through certification testing with an outside company. This process involves them testing and submitting bugs or non-compliance issues, then us fixing them and putting out new builds for testing.

Once this is complete, we will submit GD for certification with Microsoft.

After that, it is just a matter of Microsoft finding a release slot for GD in their lineup. Once that occurs, we’ll have a firm release date we can share for you.

It will likely be at least a few more months but hopefully before the end of the year.

It has been a somewhat slow process because we are, after all, a fairly small team and there is only 1 programmer doing the port. For those worried about PC updates slowing the port, that shouldn’t be a concern as they’re independent pipelines with different people working on them.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/GrimDawn/posts/3531564293524740 - Date: June 16, 2020

Other games Crate has been working on

Mountain valley town

A big factor for working on something else though is that I don’t think it is good to keep all our eggs in one basket, as a studio. Our primary goal is to keep the company alive so we can keep being independent and making games. While it’s certainly possible to focus on one franchise and stay alive for a long time doing it, it’s riskier having all your future dependent on the continued success of one game property in one genre. Diversifying the types of games we can make and the IPs we own is a good way for us to better secure out future.

Beyond just branching out to work on other genres, it has always been a goal of mine to be able to work on concurrent projects. Not only do we not want to be pigeon-holed into one genre but I think it’s important for us to be able to work on multiple projects at time. That way, we’re not just counting on the success of a single big release to keep us alive, where if it under-performs, it could take years to course-correct and finish another project (years we likely wouldn’t have). This also helps to increase the efficiency of the studio, as we can shift people around based on the needs of a project at any give time, instead of having lulls at the beginning and end of a single project, where not everyone is needed at full capacity. Another factor is that people get burnt out working on one thing for too many years. When people get burnt out, they leave and look for something new. I feel like we have a great team and I want to keep them engaged with fresh new projects and not solely grinding away on ARPGs for the next 20 years.

Their next game will be a town builder with optional combat and is done in Unity:

And there are apparently two other mysterious projects:

eisprinzessin · May 4, 2020, 9:31am

Features you might be missing but have been denied / ruled out

Closed Servers

Closed servers - why and how

We are aware that some players wish for the game to have closed servers, and in a perfect world that would be the case.

It has always comes down to the initial cost of retrofitting the entire engine to support it, future maintenance costs of such a service and (which is frequently not considered by players) the cost of opportunity (aka the time we spend on this is time we cannot spend on other things such as expansion(s) or future products).

The fact is, about 10% of ARPG players even touch MP (this data is consistent throughout history of ARPGs and remains consistent with Grim Dawn). Just because people have to go online (as with Diablo 3 and Path of Exile) to play does not automatically make them want to share that experience with others.

In the end though, for us, it falls to finances and focusing our resources where they best benefit our audience.

Loot tailored to your current character (aka Smart Loot)

Bows, wands, staffs or any other new weapons

What happened to the promised Steampunkiness, Crate?

I also just didn’t really feel compelled to add them. So, it was a combination of saving time, while also building the fictional world as I wanted it.

I’d just made an ARPG with bows but no guns or crossbows. I wanted GD to feel less high-fantasy / medieval and thought it would be cool to stick with just guns and crossbows, for a change of pace. I think that better fit the type of world I was trying to create.

In terms of variation in ranged weapon feel / mechanics, I think we could have had more of that without bows and bows wouldn’t really add that much to it. We don’t mainly because we just didn’t have the capability to spend time creating different nuanced mechanics for different classes of ranged weapons / the pre-existing system didn’t really support that.

medierra:

I’m not afraid of players ignoring melee weapons or guns, I just see staffs and wands as being sort of redundant, not fitting that well with the fiction, and really kind of taking away from what a real spell caster should be - a class that relies primarily on spells instead of a weapon. I mean a staff in TQ is basically a bow with different art and animations. So since we already have a ranged weapon class, I think it is a lot more interesting to have the pure archetypal caster classes using spells instead of an alternative ranged weapon.

[…] Art does matter in terms of the psychological feel of the character. If people object to the look of a caster holding a sword, then we could potentially think about adding in right-hand items with more caster-like art such as a grimiore or something to that effect. Although, like I said, we’re trying to create something a little different than the standard fantasy setting and as part of that, casters are taking on a slightly new form.

Infinite character progression

WASD control scheme

Need to recover from all what Grim Dawn is not? Have a look at the post-release additions in Crate’s end-of-year reviews.

eisprinzessin · June 2, 2020, 8:40am

Design decisions you might disagree with

Limited stash space

Using nerfs to balance the game

Builders vs Zantai

Our responsibility to the game is balance at all levels of play. This is something many people forget/don’t seem to realize. The vast majority of the playerbase does not play at the level that concerns forum goers, and any concerns about build viability at SR9000 and Gladiator Crucible 3x clear times are effectively irrelevant to them.

This is also why some things that certain users consider to be “big issues” or “desperately in need of redesign” are often not actually all that problematic because for the average player they are not only viable, but they also enable alternatives to min-maxed playstyles.

Obviously, the prospect of a game balanced at all levels of play is a very complex one. One could argue that it’s not even feasible with all of the moving parts intertwining in an ARPG, but it is one worth striving for nonetheless.

When it comes to balancing build performance, we have our own standards of what we believe is healthy for the overall game, even if those standards don’t align with what some builds consider “crap” or “fine”. When we observe outliers, we look into bringing them back into the middle.

Now that is going to happen whether the community works with us or not, which is why I like to remind builders that you really have two options: work with us to improve the game’s balance or accept whatever changes come your way.

Some have accepted (and benefited from) this over the years, while others feel that they need to treat us like some enemy to resist. Don’t forget that the devs have really high -%RR against Nerf Resist.

At the end of the day, we all want the same things…more viable builds and more ways to enjoy the game. This can only be achieved by finding a happy middle-ground between the overachievers and the underachievers.

An example, why nerfs are appropriate

Enemy Design, Damage Types, Resistances & Immunities, Resistance Reduction

Zantai:

As contentious of a topic as this is, I think if we were working on Grim Dawn 2 right now, I’d still consider having monsters with high resistances/immunities as we do now.

There are a number of reasons for this:

Theme and Expectation
When you look at an icy enemy, your instinct naturally gravitates towards picturing that foe being possibly susceptible to fire and likely resistant to ice. We didn’t do very much of the former and probably should have, but the latter is reflected in most of our enemies.

Likewise, when you have skeletons, you don’t really think about an enemy that’s made of just bones to bleed.

Damage Diversity
If every enemy melted equally fast to your damage of choice, what difference do damage types even make? Yes, we often associate secondary mechanics with damage types (fire often burns, cold often freezes or slows, lightning has a yuge damage range and often stuns, vitality has life steal, etc), but those mechanics only get you so far in terms of feeling different.

Varying resistances on enemies help differentiate damage types further and, going back to the earlier point of theme, make them feel different.

Highs and Lows
Building on the above point, when you have enemies with varying resistances, you start to recognize which foes are going to give your build more trouble. You may need to leave that enemy for last as you whittle them down with dots while taking out other foes. You may consider which of your skills do secondary damage types and make sure those cooldowns are always used on that foe while you focus on the rest.

Resistances also create a cadence to the combat. When not every foe takes the same amount of time, you’re not going to as easily check out of what you’re doing, mouth partially agape as you check what’s playing on Netflix on the other screen. It snaps you back in and gets you paying attention, if just a little bit.

Or it makes you sit in the spawn area of the Crucible without moving for 5 minutes and taking all of that extra damage from the portal then complaining that you died to an immune enemy. There is so much variety to the ARPG playerbase!

Learning Moment
Whether you agree with the direction the game took or not, Resistance Reduction is a core mechanic that’s critical to succeed at endgame. If a player goes the entire game without investing in RR skills then enters Ultimate, they are in for a sad surprise when they just don’t do enough damage to make a dent in some of their opponents.

Running into foes early on that are really resistant to your damage type might (can’t speak for everybody here, some people are tenacious) make you rethink your strategy.

All that said, Diablo 2 had enemies that could, by pure random rolls, generate immunities that would make them susceptible to nothing except one damage type (usually poison), and D2 was much less forgiving in that regard. I’m sure many of us can recall wailing on an enemy for 10 minutes (because fuck leaving them alive, amirite), with a damage type that’s maybe 0.5% of our output and leaving rather dissatisfied.

That’s not an ideal scenario either, and RR exists for that reason.

Too many damage types

(Suggestion) Stream Line Damage Types

I think there’s a point where too many damage types actually hinders buildcrafting. It makes class synergies more complicated and more difficult to parse for the typical player. It also means that each damage type doesn’t feel as unique.

To combat that to a degree, we’ve leaned towards having damage pairs that are frequently seen together (ex. Chaos and Vitality, or Cold and Lightning). Conversion helped as well.

I’m not convinced that culling some damage types would hurt build diversity. I think it would make your choices feel more meaningful, which is why if there is a GD2 some day, it will definitely be a step we will be taking. Most certainly you would see flat and dot damage share modifiers. Elemental would likely be removed as it only complicates things and requires additional explanation.

[Forgotten Gods] Underrepresented damage types

The story with Aether/Chaos is that they were originally intended to be damage wielded by enemies and not by players, but somewhere along the way in an effort to distinguish some classes early on, we ended up adding those damage types to mastery skills.

I think if we went back and did things all over again, we’d have stuck to those damage types being exclusive to enemies. Makes Aetherial and Chthonian powers feel more distinct than just “things players also do”.

Having less damage types is also something I think would be good if we did a sequel. Too many damage types means it is harder to overlap skills between masteries, makes gearing more difficult and muddies resistances.

As for dots being separate from flat damage for % bonuses, that’s a relic from TQ. By the time we had a moment to breathe during development and think about it, it was too ingrained in GD to rip out without significant time invested. That said, most end-game sources of damage that boost a flat damage now also boost the respective dot, so it’s not that big a deal anymore. For clarity’s sake, we would not do that again for a sequel.

Crowd Control skills are not working on bosses

eisprinzessin · May 4, 2020, 9:34am

eisprinzessin · May 4, 2020, 9:36am

eisprinzessin · June 2, 2020, 2:23pm

Technical stuff

Past, present and future of the GD engine

The Past

TQ = Titan Quest (the game medierra had worked on at Iron Lore Entertainment before he founded Crate Entertainment)

The Present

The Future: License a commercial engine or overhaul the current one?

Why did you buy the old TQ engine?

Another issue is that a lot of what people interpret as being the look of the engine is actually the look of the art itself and how it was made. We started working on GD 8 years ago now and expectations for the size of texture resolutions and triangles on models was lower than they are today. A lot of what has improved with the look of the game over the years is just us updating art / redoing textures.

The thing that might have the biggest visual impact now would be to redo lighting and the way materials are rendered but that isn’t really feasible unless we move on to GD2 and leave all this current art behind. If we go on to GD2 and no longer have to support older DX version or existing art, then we’d be free to make bigger updates to the engine.

medierra:

Part of what has kept up from making major graphics updates to GD is that we are burdened with having to support the specs we put out years ago, for older directX versions and operating systems. We can’t just update the game in a way that will break it for existing users who have to play on older machines. A jump to a sequel though gives us an opportunity to start fresh, cut support for older shader models and directX versions, hardware specs, and allow us to greatly modernize the engine. If you scrap the renderer and start over there, it’s not like the age of whatever you keep matters - it’s basically like a new engine. Beyond the engine component, we have an entire ARPG codebase we can then use, which cuts out a ton of work. Even if we go in a direction drastically different from GD, there are a lot of fundamentals to ARPG gameplay that take time to program and get working just right. It would be easier and lower risk to start from a point of being able to say “what do we want to change, cut, add” to an existing codebase.

Not sure what direction we’ll go in terms of engine but it’s not a straightforward choice. There are big pros and cons either way.

Source: Steam Discussions - Date: May 25, 2020