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

[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.

[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...    

 

[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.

[Riamus]

13 minutes ago, Numberz said:

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.

Rewards were reduced to basically nothing already.  No need to remove shared progression.

[FramFramson]

46 minutes ago, Riamus said:

Rewards were reduced to basically nothing already.  No need to remove shared progression.

 

This.

 

Oh no, everyone got their one bacon and eggs (and XP).

[DJDaedrik]

Yeah, this change has made multiplayer and absolute SLOG. I can think of a dozen different ways to re-balance the co-op progression system, and this is by a good margin the laziest and most negatively impactful, especially for large group play. Now the best thing to do when playing with your friends is to... not play with your friends? 2 players already doubles the total quests needed, but with my group of 5? That'd be 50 FREAKING QUESTS were we to do what friends want to do in video games, and, you know, play them together. Regardless of TFP's stance on this one, it'll be a non-issue in no time. Such an abysmal feeling change will have a mod in a week if TFP hasn't fixed it yet. Just a bummer for those that can't be bothered with mods to have their co-op prog completely borked.

[8_Hussars]

Again Contrary Opinion.

There seems to be an underlying assumption that all co-op players have to min/max Trader Stage.  Further, that to enjoy running a co-op quest every participant needs more incentive, than the safety and speed from numbers.

With the nerfed 1.0 quest rewards is Trader Stage even important, now that traders rep up simultaneously again?

The pleasure of running a POI(s) in a group is its own reward for me, or I just do my own thing and mine/build/farm to support the group.

[Numberz]

1 hour ago, DJDaedrik said:

Yeah, this change has made multiplayer and absolute SLOG. I can think of a dozen different ways to re-balance the co-op progression system, and this is by a good margin the laziest and most negatively impactful, especially for large group play. Now the best thing to do when playing with your friends is to... not play with your friends? 2 players already doubles the total quests needed, but with my group of 5? That'd be 50 FREAKING QUESTS were we to do what friends want to do in video games, and, you know, play them together. Regardless of TFP's stance on this one, it'll be a non-issue in no time. Such an abysmal feeling change will have a mod in a week if TFP hasn't fixed it yet. Just a bummer for those that can't be bothered with mods to have their co-op prog completely borked.

Yeah, that is a good point.  It’s too many quests.  I’ve changed my mind.  Perhaps a compromise where all get credit on the tier progress and get a reward but only the quest holder gets the Dukes?

[Riamus]

32 minutes ago, 8_Hussars said:

Again Contrary Opinion.

There seems to be an underlying assumption that all co-op players have to min/max Trader Stage.  Further, that to enjoy running a co-op quest every participant needs more incentive, than the safety and speed from numbers.

With the nerfed 1.0 quest rewards is Trader Stage even important, now that traders rep up simultaneously again?

The pleasure of running a POI(s) in a group is its own reward for me, or I just do my own thing and mine/build/farm to support the group.

I think you aren't seeing the problem.  Let's just look at the first two tiers on an 8 player game.  Tier 1 is 10 points and tier two is 20 additional points. 

 

That is a total of 80 quests for tier 1 and 160 quests for tier 2.  If everyone wants to quest together and if they really push things, they might complete 10 in a day on 60 minute days.  That's 8 days for tier 1 and 16 more days for tier 2.  Day 24 to reach tier 3?  That is crazy.  And that's just to complete the first two tiers.

 

Now, yes, you can split the party and have smaller groups do quests instead of the entire group, but you shouldn't penalize a group that wants to quest together.  And even if you split it into two groups of four, you still have a lot of days to get the tiers up.

 

About the only solution is to have only one person level up their tier to 5/6 and then bring everyone on high level quests to get them the multiple points per quest.  I don't think that is a good design choice, either.

 

It isn't about whether it is fun to just quest.  It is about the time required to complete the tiers.  In single player, you will always complete yours multiple times faster than multiplayer unless everyone on multiplayer quests solo, which isn't why you play multiplayer.  It should be the same progression regardless of number of players.

Edited Wednesday at 09:37 PM by Riamus (see edit history)

[8_Hussars]

27 minutes ago, Riamus said:

I think you aren't seeing the problem.  Let's just look at the first two tiers on an 8 player game.  Tier 1 is 10 points and tier two is 20 additional points. 

 

That is a total of 80 quests for tier 1 and 160 quests for tier 2.  If everyone wants to quest together and if they really push things, they might complete 10 in a day on 60 minute days.  That's 8 days for tier 1 and 16 more days for tier 2.  Day 24 to reach tier 3?  That is crazy.  And that's just to complete the first two tiers.

 

Now, yes, you can split the party and have smaller groups do quests instead of the entire group, but you shouldn't legalize a group that wants to quest together.  And even if you split it into two groups of four, you still have a lot of days to get the tiers up.

 

About the only solution is to have only one person level up their tier to 5/6 and then bring everyone on high level quests to get them the multiple points per quest.  I don't think that is a good design choice, either.

 

It isn't about whether it is fun to just quest.  It is about the time required to complete the tiers.  In single player, you will always complete yours multiple times faster than multiplayer unless everyone on multiplayer quests solo, which isn't why you play multiplayer.  It should be the same progression regardless of number of players.

Confession: I rush the bicycle and rarely or ever quest again.  (If parts/repairable bikes were more prevalent, I would not even do those.)

Conversely, If the group of eight does five quests a day for one member (to increase the Trader Rep), then "the group" has access to Level 4 quests by Horde night. Which is pretty fast.  I understand the math, but don't understand the rationale or desire.

Realistically, co-op players do it in A21 for the OP rewards over multiple traders, not for Trader Stage.  To me, it seems like an A21 meta mechanic that is being automatically applied to 1.0 co-op play; where it appears much less valid.

Given individual rewards are nerfed already, traders rep up together again, and Trader stage is mostly irrelevant in a co-op setting (as you likely have one player doing better barter/daring adventurer for the group).  What is the rationale to do 80 Level 1 quests together in order to upgrade all co-op players Trader Stage 2? 

Don't get me wrong, I am not against the idea, and there are likely better ways, just a contrary opinion.

I guess your right, I see the problem, I just don't see it as a big problem.

Edited Wednesday at 09:59 PM by 8_Hussars (see edit history)

[Riamus]

22 minutes ago, 8_Hussars said:

Confession: I rush the bicycle and rarely or ever quest again.  (If parts/repairable bikes were more prevalent, I would not even do those.)

Conversely, If the group of eight does five quests a day for one member (to increase the Trader Rep), then "the group" has access to Level 4 quests by Horde night. Which is pretty fast.  I understand the math, but don't understand the rationale or desire.

Realistically, co-op players do it in A21 for the OP rewards over multiple traders, not for Trader Stage.  To me, it seems like an A21 meta mechanic that is being automatically applied to 1.0 co-op play; where it appears much less valid.

Given individual rewards are nerfed already, traders rep up together again, and Trader stage is mostly irrelevant in a co-op setting (as you likely have one player doing better barter/daring adventurer for the group).  What is the rationale to do 80 Level 1 quests together in order to upgrade all co-op players Trader Stage 2? 

Don't get me wrong, I am not against the idea, and there are likely better ways, just a contrary opinion.

I guess your right, I see the problem, I just don't see it as a big problem.

Everyone plays differently, like you mentioned.  Many people like to complete traders as a goal.  Others like being able to take tier 5/6 quests without relying on other players to take and share the quest.  Many people just enjoy quests.  You may not care about quests, and that is perfectly fine.  But that means you don't have the same investment in questing that others have.  It may be minor to someone who doesn't quest, like you.  But for those who do like questing, it is a bigger problem.  Consider the time investment in real life to complete these. 

 

They reduced the rewards and increased the number of quests required to complete each tier.  I am fine with those changes.  That already nerfs question enough, imo.  No need to also break co-op questing for people. 

 

Note that I don't play 8 player and usually play 2 player or occasionally 3.  Rarely more.  So it isn't as significant for me as for others.  I being up the extreme case because it is applicable for many players.

30 minutes ago, 8_Hussars said:

Conversely, If the group of eight does five quests a day for one member (to increase the Trader Rep), then "the group" has access to Level 4 quests by Horde night. Which is pretty fast.  I understand the math, but don't understand the rationale or desire.

Oh, and this isn't true.  It takes 30 quests for one person to compete tier 2.  At five quests per day, that is six days to reach tier 3.  I haven't looked at the requirements for the other tiers, not even if it was still 20 points for each tier after 2 (2 is 20 additional points), that still means 4 days each tier for a single person doing 5 quests per day.  And I have a feeling the points continue to increase each tier.

[MechanicalLens]

11 minutes ago, Riamus said:

Everyone plays differently, like you mentioned.  Many people like to complete traders as a goal.  Others like being able to take tier 5/6 quests without relying on other players to take and share the quest.  Many people just enjoy quests.  You may not care about quests, and that is perfectly fine.  But that means you don't have the same investment in questing that others have.  It may be minor to someone who doesn't quest, like you.  But for those who do like questing, it is a bigger problem.  Consider the time investment in real life to complete these. 

 

They reduced the rewards and increased the number of quests required to complete each tier.  I am fine with those changes.  That already nerfs question enough, imo.  No need to also break co-op questing for people. 

 

Note that I don't play 8 player and usually play 2 player or occasionally 3.  Rarely more.  So it isn't as significant for me as for others.  I being up the extreme case because it is applicable for many players.

Oh, and this isn't true.  It takes 30 quests for one person to compete tier 2.  At five quests per day, that is six days to reach tier 3.  I haven't looked at the requirements for the other tiers, not even if it was still 20 points for each tier after 2 (2 is 20 additional points), that still means 4 days each tier for a single person doing 5 quests per day.  And I have a feeling the points continue to increase each tier.

 

That is incorrect; it takes 30 points for someone to complete tier two quests. That's 10 tier two jobs, or however many tier 1's or both tiers combined.

[meganoth]

18 minutes ago, Riamus said:

They reduced the rewards and increased the number of quests required to complete each tier.  I am fine with those changes.  That already nerfs question enough, imo.  No need to also break co-op questing for people. 

 

Both of those changes you mentioned above did nothing to the speed disparitiy between single and multiplayer. Reducing rewards slows down both and increasing number of quests does as well. (Correction: The first measure actually does, somewhat)

 

I have often been playing single player and 4 person co-op and our group was always about 3 times faster progressing than I was in single player. There are many reasons for this.

 

Only playing it ourselves will really tell us if this was the right measure to level the field.

 

Edited Wednesday at 10:44 PM by meganoth (see edit history)

[Riamus]

2 minutes ago, MechanicalLens said:

 

That is incorrect; it takes 30 points for someone to complete tier two quests. That's 10 tier two jobs, or however many tier 1's or both tiers combined.

I said 30 points for one person to complete the first two tiers.  10 for tier 1, 20 for tier 2.  It was spelled out in more detail in my post above and I even added that 2 was 20 points in the post you quoted. 

 

Are you saying that a person on tier 2 gets 2 points per quest?  That wouldn't make sense.  If that is the case, then just stick to 1 point per quest on all tiers and only 10 points per tier.  Now, someone on tier 1 quests who does a tier 2 quest will get more points (at least in A21 and I assume that will applies).

Just now, meganoth said:

 

Both of those changes you mentioned above did nothing to the speed disparitiy between single and multiplayer. Reducing rewards slows down both and increasing number of quests does as well.

 

I have often been playing single player and 4 person co-op and our group was always about 3 times faster progressing than I was in single player. There are many reasons for this.

 

Only playing it ourselves will really tell us if this was the right measure to level the field.

 

Yes, and now it is completely reversed, assuming co-op quests as a group.  It should be equal for single player or group. 

[meganoth]

12 minutes ago, Riamus said:

Yes, and now it is completely reversed, assuming co-op quests as a group.  It should be equal for single player or group. 

 

No it is not reversed as you still have many advantages as a group. Usual survival workload is shared between the group (one builds the base, one mines, one makes the food, makes it done 3 times faster). Doing any single quest is at least 2 to 3 times faster AND you can do multiple quests before returning to the trader. All the loot has a lot more chance to be useful to one of you. Oh @%$# situations are 10 times better survivable. And I surely forgot a few.

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 10:56 PM by meganoth (see edit history)

[MechanicalLens]

28 minutes ago, Riamus said:

I said 30 points for one person to complete the first two tiers.  10 for tier 1, 20 for tier 2.  It was spelled out in more detail in my post above and I even added that 2 was 20 points in the post you quoted. 

 

Are you saying that a person on tier 2 gets 2 points per quest?  That wouldn't make sense.  If that is the case, then just stick to 1 point per quest on all tiers and only 10 points per tier.  Now, someone on tier 1 quests who does a tier 2 quest will get more points (at least in A21 and I assume that will applies).

Yes, and now it is completely reversed, assuming co-op quests as a group.  It should be equal for single player or group. 

 

Yes, you get two points when you're on tier 2 quests, per tier 2 job. Alternatively, you could go back to tier 1 jobs but you'd only get 1 point per job. Tier 5 jobs, for instance, should give 5 points per job, or you could do tier 1 jobs to complete tier 5, but it would take 5 times as long

Note: This is singleplayer. I'm assuming it works the same on multiplayer, but as I don't play with friends (or have any), I cannot say.

Edited Wednesday at 11:10 PM by MechanicalLens (see edit history)

[Riamus]

19 minutes ago, meganoth said:

 

No it is not reversed as you still have many advantages as a group. Usual survival workload is shared between the group (one builds the base, one mines, one makes the food, makes it done 3 times faster). Doing any single quest is at least 2 to 3 times faster AND you can do multiple quests before returning to the trader. All the loot has a lot more chance to be useful to one of you. Oh @%$# situations are 10 times better survivable. And I surely forgot a few.

There should be advantage in numbers.  The speed you complete quests will vary significantly depending how you do it.  If everyone follows the path, you won't be significantly faster, especially in a large group because you are just bottlenecking.  In a wide open POI, definitely.  In a fetch, even less because each person needs to reach different places (usually) for their satchel.  Yes, it is faster.  But you can limit number of tier points per day for everyone and that would be a flat line across the board.

 

Take 1 player.  10 quests to compete tier 1.  If you do max quests per day, you take 2 days to complete tier 1.  Take 8 players who group together.  Each player needs to do 10 of their own quests to compete tier 1.  That is going to be significantly slower than any increase you gain from question together.  You aren't going to complete 80 quests in two days if people do quests as a group.  Each would have to do it by themselves.  At best, you might manage in groups of two.

 

 

[meganoth]

12 minutes ago, Riamus said:

There should be advantage in numbers. 

And this you have. But there is no rule that says groups should be faster progressing in a game.

 

13 minutes ago, Riamus said:

  The speed you complete quests will vary significantly depending how you do it.  If everyone follows the path, you won't be significantly faster, especially in a large group because you are just bottlenecking.

 

I can only speak for a group of 4 but we usually follow the path. And we are still much faster. Usually POIs are made of lots of rooms with multiple zombies. You can swarm in the room and everyone takes one zombie. If you are not at a stage where you are one-shotting every zombie (definitely not the case in early game) even a single zombie is taken down much faster when 4 people are pummeling him down.

 

In single player in the first days I need to do a complicated dance with a zombie where I hit, go back a step, go forth and hit, go back again,... and even have to run a bit when the zombie goes into rage. Takes a lot of time. None of this is necessary if four people are hitting that zombie, before he is in rage he is already on the ground the first time.

 

Now I would assume with 8 players it could get really crowded and they have to go separate paths or even separate quests. I often feel the same even in a 4 player group when we have reached higher levels. But that is a different thing.

 

[Riamus]

43 minutes ago, MechanicalLens said:

 

Yes, you get two points when you're on tier 2 quests, per tier 2 job. Alternatively, you could go back to tier 1 jobs but you'd only get 1 point per job. Tier 5 jobs, for instance, should give 5 points per job, or you could do tier 1 jobs to complete tier 5, but it would take 5 times as long

Note: This is singleplayer. I'm assuming it works the same on multiplayer, but as I don't play with friends (or have any), I cannot say.

Ok, I didn't look at that in game yet as I only just got to tier 2 yesterday.  If that is the case, it is better but still off.  That still means 80 quests per tier for 8 players if everyone does the quests at their your level.  That is still way too much.

12 minutes ago, meganoth said:

And this you have. But there is no rule that says groups should be faster progressing in a game.

Like I said, quests tiers can be limited per day without requiring you to do a ton more quests to get everyone up a tier.  It doesn't have to be faster OR slower.