1.0 Experimental Feedback Please let multiplayer quest clears advance everyone's tier progress

[Bask]

I believe the biggest draw for player counts right now is multiplayer. I have gotten 3 people to play personally and everyone I know says that the main issue they have is that everyone needs to funnel all the magazines to one person and it feels like being a side character in someone else's game instead of playing together. Hearing that shared quests only progress one person is a major turn-off. Making a setting for shared magazines and shared quests so it's at least optional would bring a lot of players back to the game and make new players more likely to stay since they can customize preferences for multiplayer. I understand their reasoning and I'm not trying to convince them to make this change the default, but more settings like this to tune progression would be great for a lot of players. I remember when Xp sharing didn't exist and it was actually night and day when it got added. The option for little changes like this can flip someone's whole attitude about the game. This and optimization make up about 80% of the bad mojo surrounding this game, and fixing the former would bring way more hype to the 1.0 launch.

[Riamus]

2 hours ago, Bask said:

I believe the biggest draw for player counts right now is multiplayer. I have gotten 3 people to play personally and everyone I know says that the main issue they have is that everyone needs to funnel all the magazines to one person and it feels like being a side character in someone else's game instead of playing together. Hearing that shared quests only progress one person is a major turn-off. Making a setting for shared magazines and shared quests so it's at least optional would bring a lot of players back to the game and make new players more likely to stay since they can customize preferences for multiplayer. I understand their reasoning and I'm not trying to convince them to make this change the default, but more settings like this to tune progression would be great for a lot of players. I remember when Xp sharing didn't exist and it was actually night and day when it got added. The option for little changes like this can flip someone's whole attitude about the game. This and optimization make up about 80% of the bad mojo surrounding this game, and fixing the former would bring way more hype to the 1.0 launch.

There have been many topics about magazines so I won't go into that much, but the short answer is that sharing magazines in MP isn't all that difficult.  Read the ones you use and put the rest into a shared chest for others to read.  No need to keep track of who reads what.  Is it ideal?  No.  Does it work?  Yes.  Is there a mod that removes magazines if you don't like them?  Yes, though it would need to be updated for 1.0.

 

Regarding quest sharing, where did you see that only one person gets the progression?  I haven't seen that.  That would be an unusual change considering the challenges are shared if they are kills and only need to be done individually for something like crafting or collecting (though collecting would probably work if you gave stuff to the other person).  But maybe they did something with that since they tied all trader progression together instead of having it different for each trader so that it didn't progress too quickly in MP.

Edited June 24 by Riamus (see edit history)

[Max Headroom]

2 hours ago, Bask said:

I believe the biggest draw for player counts right now is multiplayer. I have gotten 3 people to play personally and everyone I know says that the main issue they have is that everyone needs to funnel all the magazines to one person

I play in a three-person team. We specialize our skill areas and divide up the literature accordingly.

[SteamM0nkey]

just turn loot up on the server.

 

[Ramethzer0]

Getting to know how to trim your experience using the difficulty and detail toggles will solve 90% of your problems.

[elektrohund]

This mod by Alter might interest you

[Bask]

10 hours ago, Riamus said:

There have been many topics about magazines so I won't go into that much, but the short answer is that sharing magazines in MP isn't all that difficult.  Read the ones you use and put the rest into a shared chest for others to read.  No need to keep track of who reads what.  Is it ideal?  No.  Does it work?  Yes.  Is there a mod that removes magazines if you don't like them?  Yes, though it would need to be updated for 1.0.

 

Regarding quest sharing, where did you see that only one person gets the progression?  I haven't seen that.  That would be an unusual change considering the challenges are shared if they are kills and only need to be done individually for something like crafting or collecting (though collecting would probably work if you gave stuff to the other person).  But maybe they did something with that since they tied all trader progression together instead of having it different for each trader so that it didn't progress too quickly in MP.

I saw the quest thing in a wayward Ekko vid breaking down the dev streams. 

As for the other issue, it assumes that everyone is okay with letting one person craft all of an item type which just isn't true. People want to be able to craft and unlock things for themselves/ map their progression in terms of magazines gained. It works in a technical sense but it isn't fun. As for modding, waiting for modders to follow every update and hoping they don't quit is one issue, but even extending on that many players don't want to mod. I think, like xp sharing, this is a relevant and common enough issue to be a setting. 

I'll copy this other reply to get a better idea of where I think the issue lies.

 

"As for the other issue, it assumes that everyone is okay with letting one person craft all of an item type which just isn't true. People want to be able to craft and unlock things for themselves/ map their progression in terms of magazines gained. It works in a technical sense but it isn't fun. As for modding, waiting for modders to follow every update and hoping they don't quit is one issue, but even extending on that many players don't want to mod. I think, like xp sharing, this is a relevant and common enough issue to be a setting."

8 hours ago, elektrohund said:

This mod by Alter might interest you

Thank you, I'll personally resort to modding if they don't end up making this change, but it'll be hard to get my friends to play.

9 hours ago, Ramethzer0 said:

Getting to know how to trim your experience using the difficulty and detail toggles will solve 90% of your problems.

Messing with the other settings and turning up loot across the board doesn't fix players who don't get to use magazines not getting to track any progression or craft things for themselves. Plus people may not want all loot increased just to get double magazines to split between 2 people. A sharing setting would do nothing but good IMO. 

[Riamus]

1 hour ago, Bask said:

I saw the quest thing in a wayward Ekko vid breaking down the dev streams. 

As for the other issue, it assumes that everyone is okay with letting one person craft all of an item type which just isn't true. People want to be able to craft and unlock things for themselves/ map their progression in terms of magazines gained. It works in a technical sense but it isn't fun. As for modding, waiting for modders to follow every update and hoping they don't quit is one issue, but even extending on that many players don't want to mod. I think, like xp sharing, this is a relevant and common enough issue to be a setting. 

I'll copy this other reply to get a better idea of where I think the issue lies.

 

"As for the other issue, it assumes that everyone is okay with letting one person craft all of an item type which just isn't true. People want to be able to craft and unlock things for themselves/ map their progression in terms of magazines gained. It works in a technical sense but it isn't fun. As for modding, waiting for modders to follow every update and hoping they don't quit is one issue, but even extending on that many players don't want to mod. I think, like xp sharing, this is a relevant and common enough issue to be a setting."

Thank you, I'll personally resort to modding if they don't end up making this change, but it'll be hard to get my friends to play.

Messing with the other settings and turning up loot across the board doesn't fix players who don't get to use magazines not getting to track any progression or craft things for themselves. Plus people may not want all loot increased just to get double magazines to split between 2 people. A sharing setting would do nothing but good IMO. 

Okay, I saw the shared quest thing today.  Yeah, that's a pain.

 

The whole magazine thing has been discussed a lot on the forums when A21 came out.  It's nice to learn it all yourself and you can certainly do that if you want.  But you'll always be slower that way.  Even when recipes/schematics were the way they were in A20 and everyone learned their own things, you wouldn't get all of them for anyone very quickly because each person grabbed whatever.  It's not an ideal way to play but I get that some want that.  I think it works fine in my games.  But it does require people who will share rather than want to read everything themselves.

[Bask]

17 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

I play in a three-person team. We specialize our skill areas and divide up the literature accordingly.

Which is why if it was a server setting you would be able to keep playing that way if you really wanted. 

5 hours ago, Riamus said:

Okay, I saw the shared quest thing today.  Yeah, that's a pain.

 

The whole magazine thing has been discussed a lot on the forums when A21 came out.  It's nice to learn it all yourself and you can certainly do that if you want.  But you'll always be slower that way.  Even when recipes/schematics were the way they were in A20 and everyone learned their own things, you wouldn't get all of them for anyone very quickly because each person grabbed whatever.  It's not an ideal way to play but I get that some want that.  I think it works fine in my games.  But it does require people who will share rather than want to read everything themselves.

It wouldn't change progression at all when enabled. I mean like if your ally uses a magazine you both get it. That way everyone just uses the magazines they find and it benefits everyone equally. 

[Bask]

19 hours ago, Bask said:

I believe the biggest draw for player counts right now is multiplayer. I have gotten 3 people to play personally and everyone I know says that the main issue they have is that everyone needs to funnel all the magazines to one person and it feels like being a side character in someone else's game instead of playing together. Hearing that shared quests only progress one person is a major turn-off. Making a setting for shared magazines and shared quests so it's at least optional would bring a lot of players back to the game and make new players more likely to stay since they can customize preferences for multiplayer. I understand their reasoning and I'm not trying to convince them to make this change the default, but more settings like this to tune progression would be great for a lot of players. I remember when Xp sharing didn't exist and it was actually night and day when it got added. The option for little changes like this can flip someone's whole attitude about the game. This and optimization make up about 80% of the bad mojo surrounding this game, and fixing the former would bring way more hype to the 1.0 launch.

Edit: To clarify, I'm suggesting adding a server setting option that allows consumed magazines progress all allies. It doesen't change the speed of progression at all. I'm aware that you can funnel all magazines to 1 person and I'm aware that some people do class roleplays where they give mags to different friends with the corresponding build. 

If your team collects 40 of mag X and 40 of mag Y, in terms of progression speed it doesen't matter if you give all 40 of mag X to player A and all 40 of mag Y to player B, if you give all 80 to a single player, or if every players mag progress was shared; the team benifits the same ammount. 

My point is just that shared is far more convenient, fun and immersive. It's important to be able to look at the progress of your mags and quests and when your UI is sitting at a steady 0 it hurts the immersion. When you need to enlist your friend to craft things for you or, you have one guys crafter times waiting on a whole team's items it hurts the pacing and makes it less fun. (which of course should be the focus of the funpimps)

The only justification I could see for not even making this a setting is that its not that big of a deal for most people to just deal with it, which is a bit of a dissapointing dismissal.

 

[meganoth]

That magazines should be exchanged to the person who needs it adds to the feeling of co-op play. In my group everyone shouts out if he found a magazine useful for someone else in the group ("Hey, I got another spear magazine for you"). And giving stuff useful to someone else is adding to the experience. And I think that is why the Funpimps added it. And that is also why they probably will be reluctant to add a switch for auto-sharing, because everyone wants to turn on a switch that saves on inventory space and nobody will think about any hard to measure consequences of long-term co-op play.

 

Players who decided to give it all to one person have made the wrong conclusion how to tackle magazines. It obviously is not fun and a great example of how to not play co-op. Co-op also means to share the fun. By the same token you don't let only one person loot in a co-op game even if that would be slightly more efficient.

 

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

Wait shared quests aren´t a thing anymore? Why? 

[Riamus]

2 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

Wait shared quests aren´t a thing anymore? Why? 

Yeah, it's not good.  You can share but only the quest owner gets the points toward the next quest tier.

[pApA^LeGBa]

Jeez. How do you come up with such an idea and why? If 2 people do a quest together they usually do the same amount of work. Along with the water changes from A21 and magazines this is another step into kinda forcing people to go solo in a MP game.

 

If this is just to slow down progression what will happen is that many people will spam quests like crazy solo until T6 wich defeats the slowing down again. They nerfed trader rewards so quests aren´t as OP anymore and people don´t just spam them but at the same time they give us another reason to spam them. Nice.

 

I hope that is just a bug or something.

Edited June 25 by pApA^LeGBa (see edit history)

[Joey9Baka]

PLEASE LET MULTIPLAYER QUEST CLEARS ADVANCE EVERYONE'S TIER PROGRESS!

It feels absolutely awful in coop to have player's be actively punished from advancing their quest tier progress while doing quests with each other unless the quest is their's specifically.

 

This feels awful and absolutely ruins the co op pace I had while playing with my family. Please undo this change it now actively punishes my family and x4's the amount of quests we'll have to do just to get everyone a bike!

Having to either clear 40 quests in co op or have everyone go do x10 quests solo just to get a bike just feels miserable.

[Max Headroom]

That is unfortunate. :-(

[Riamus]

Agreed.  This is a bad design choice.  It makes it so players will just go do their own quests rather than play co-op for questing.

[ScipioAsmodean]

1 hour ago, Riamus said:

Agreed.  This is a bad design choice.  It makes it so players will just go do their own quests rather than play co-op for questing.

 

 

Totally agree. Like I already said at least the option in the menue

[mrspinn]

1+
Our multiplayer server is boring as @%$# without being able to benefit from shared quests. Worst change that could have possibly been made for multiplayer servers. My girlfriend has NO INTEREST in doing quests by herself, so I have to waste time doing quests with her that don't advance my trader stage. I legit feel like I'm wasting my time by helping my allies and that stupid.

[8_Hussars]

Contrary opinion. 

Groups already get shared XP and can do quests much faster with far less danger, that should be the reward.  Certainly in the A21 context having each player get an OP reward for completing (1/number of players questing) amount of work is ridiculously OP.  In the 1.0 version with the removal of separate trader progressions its even more OP.

There needs to be a better balance.  Maybe no trader rewards except for the quest holder but half a trader rep increase to the participants.

If trader rep really is the sticking point; one PITA solution would be to CM in quest completion tokens...    

 

[mrspinn]

Hating the shared quests progression change. It feels absolutely awful. I feel like I'm wasting my time questing with my allies and that's stupid.

[BFT2020]

I wonder if that change was made because of the other changes to trader progression.  Before 1.0, you have to start over at T1 quests for each new type of trader you found.  Now, when you go to Trader Jen after finishing 10 quests for Rekt, you start out at T2 quests for her.

[FramFramson]

I get the counterargument, but I would still rather incentivize co-op play over disincentivizing it.

 

At least make it a toggle server setting or something.

[Riamus]

42 minutes ago, BFT2020 said:

I wonder if that change was made because of the other changes to trader progression.  Before 1.0, you have to start over at T1 quests for each new type of trader you found.  Now, when you go to Trader Jen after finishing 10 quests for Rekt, you start out at T2 quests for her.

Probably, but I'd rather restart progression with each trader than not get tier points on a shared quest.  I play 2 player mostly and that's already bad with this new method.  I can't begin to imagine how frustrating it would be for 8 players.  80 quests just to complete tier 1 for everyone?!  If you do those together, that's insane.

[Numberz]

My 2 cents…

Every member of a group getting Dukes and Reward from the trader was quite OP.  The quests themselves also become exponentially easier the more participants there are.  Incentivizing co-op play should be a thing for sure but the rewards need to be scaled back considerably for the participants who are not the quest holder.