Incentives For Party Play?
Mon, 10/25/2010 - 18:33
I'm curious, what exactly are the incentives to play with a party? Since I've joined, I've managed to solo every dungeon to the core (which, admittedly, has only been the past 3), finishing my latest today without any deaths. I don't really see any reason to play with a party, as the only thing I have yet to accomplish is complete an arena below Emberlight by myself without reviving more than 3 times. I've been thinking about this for a while, and I know this topic has been brought up in bits and pieces, but I simply think the benefits of soloing drastically outweigh the benefits of party play, and was wondering what is in store for the future of this game to promote party play.
The way I see it, the way this game currently exists, when I solo I get the best of the game with only one drawback. I get all the items, all the health, get to take my time an explore the maps completely, get to understand enemy patterns, get to play battles safely, and most of all, I can play while I'm at work because I'm not holding anyone back if I alt tab for an hour to do a checkup on the computers. The downsides are that I get less minerals per energy cost, it's not as much fun as playing with friends, and some battles simply are not possible to solo unless you're damn lucky or have some amazing gear.
The problem with party play is that two of the three "perks" to party play are negated by game mechanics. Yes, I might get less minerals per energy spent when soloing, but the amount of crowns I lose out on those minerals are negligible compared to the extra loot I get. I have yet to understand the full workings of gates, but it seems that they cycle out, so even if you dumped enough minerals into a gate to get 1000 crowns a day for its duration, I'm pretty sure the value of the materials you lose out on to get that many minerals is much greater than the amount you gain from them. I do not yet have conclusive data to prove this, however I am working on it.
Now, as for battles that simply are not soloable, I like the concept but I don't think they're super well designed, because I can usually make it through them with blind swipes with my sword, sometimes without dying even. Even if I do die, and spend the 10 energy to revive. While that 10 energy would normally allow me to go down one additional floor, I've been gaining anywhere from 100~400% the items as I would have if I had joined a team, so that 10 energy that I spent dying in solo play would have taken me 20+ to get the same monetary rewards from a team. I'm not really going to comment any further on this though, as I know things like bombs, shields, level designs and all that stuff is still being discussed, and also because I have seen a few really well designed rooms that prove you guys can make them if you want to.
Finally, playing with friends can not be compared to. It is infinitely better than soloing, but as soon as you stop playing with friends who you know are competent, you get into the realm of uncertainty. If you play with friends then it's great because they go "Oh, I found Item X that you need to build Recipe Y, here you go" and the loot distribution doesn't really matter, and at least for my friends, we use skype/vent/TS/Axon/whatever to talk to each other while we play and plan out our attacks. Friends also tend to be more conscientious when it comes to health distribution so I've never ended up in a party where one player has +10 max and currently sitting at full HP while everyone else is +1~2 max and sitting at 1 bar from dead. Solo play cannot compare to the experience, and while it's true that I have not yet played with random people within this game (and I'm sure, this being limited access, the few players that are here aren't dicks), playing games with random strangers tends to be less enjoyable than soloing, and much less enjoyable than playing with friends.
Now, I know there are talks about health distribution, enemy AIs and balancing, as well as overall level design with topics like the level climax idea, but when this game's core mechanics get boiled down to the core it's all about getting loot to get better loot to get deeper into the gates, and currently party play is not conducive to that. With a very limited amount of daily energy players will want to get the most out of it they can, especially since the quicker a player can gain crowns the quicker they can buy crystal energy from other players so that they can keep playing longer. Currently the best way to do that is to solo, and I don't think it should be.
I'll now as the question again, why would I ever want to play in a party? What's in store for the future of the game that would make it anything more than a glorified single player game?
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 08:16
#2
Perhaps...
Perhaps having special areas or paths that require a predetermined amount of players to enter, which would then break off into an alternate path. Each depth level going through the "Party Area" would have an elevator that would bring you back to the "Solo Area", incase someone does leave.
...Could be a coding nightmare, but would be pretty awesome.
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 13:54
#3
Solo v. Party and Guild
I hope I'm not repeating these concepts. If I am, accept my apologies.
On Solo Play:
I prefer this way, personally; I scamper in and out quite a bit, and this way know I wouldn't affect someone else's gameplay. Way back (hah) when MU*s were the online M of the MOment, I'd play those solo- exploring the new areas and zones, collecting equipment and gold and other sorts of things to improve my character with little concern of the more social/teamplay aspect of the game (i.e. 'grouping', with your standard tank/caster/healer arrangement). What made me more interested in being involved with a 'team' or 'clan' or whatever term you choose was when there was an offer of reward or prize goal available.
I'll purposely overlook the idea of online roleplaying; that's difficult (and tedious) to hard code.
Having potential rewards, prizes, reduction of costs, or special swag available to those who collect items in a group-- specifically, if you and your best guild mates take a run down (as an example) from Haven to the 'Manor, there would be a greater collection of materials, minerals, a potential for guild decor or awards (if you were to look up information about said guild, you would see what missions they'd completed from a predetermined list of achievements-- "X levels attained" "Y number of guild members have reached the core", etc.), might be a start toward an incentive to want to adventure with a group
... And equally bring some depth to the idea of guilds. This idea- that your group could win renown- was what appealed to me about YPP. I'd not been in a gaming environment that offered high-level teamwork goals. Though I don't have the time to achieve those anymore, I think it works as a concept. If one were to introduce a more in-depth concept of PVP into SK, there's far more that could be done group-wise; I know not if that's an end-goal or idea for the game-- I'm thinking not, however.
Guilds would offer meaningful grouping in this fashion by lending to the payout system due to the circumstance that all players involved were tightly associated, working for a common cause, for King and Country, what have you.
Other random thoughts (looking back on ten years of MUD administration):
Limit guild sizes to a reasonable number. See the above post, wherein "playing with friends" is detailed
Joining or leaving a guild ought to mean something, along the lines of gains or losses
Create guild challenges (tournaments?) wherein the group would participate, and its result would be rated or held against others for the top prizes
Allow for the creation of items that would be specifically guild-based
How about group abilities? Being able to create coordinated attacks- or alchemical creations- because you have three group/guild members who all three know one part necessary, which they may have either gained on a run, or gained insight into on a previous mission.
Anyhow, that's something to chew on.
Regards,
T
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 15:14
#4
They could make secret areas
They could make secret areas that require more than 1 person to enter and are not required to beat the level. For instance, you could have it so you need two people to stand on two switches at the same time to open up a passage to some clover treasure chest things.
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 16:08
#5
It would be nice if rewards
It would be nice if rewards scaled down by party size. In particular the number of health canisters should scale down when you're with a small group or solo. It's very easy to quickly have full health when soloing which enables you to defeat levels that should probably be too difficult alone. Currently, there's far more motivation to solo in terms of rewards than to go with a party. I'm all for bonuses for party play, but that wont address the issue of solo knights encountering a disproportionately large amount of goodies.
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 16:18
#6
I can envision a map segment
I can envision a map segment that would branch into four one-way button-or-key-bearing paths, which would open up a varying number of optional branches depending on how many gates were opened by it (or optionally have another section that converged into four two-way treasure caches).
Also, as for party play, there's always the advantage of minerals gathered being duplicated to other players at no loss. A full party can make quite a bit of mineral loot that way, which in turn enables larger shares in gate creation, which in turn nets you a larger amount of heat and crowns gained from the parties adventuring there.
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 17:34
#7
PVP or Guild vs Guild would
PVP or Guild vs Guild would be nice....
Thu, 10/28/2010 - 17:15
#8
Split the Energy costs to go down Elevator
How about the Energy costs to go down the elevator get split between players? One player will pay 10 energy to go down, while a party of two players will pay 5 energy each, and so on.
Fri, 10/29/2010 - 06:16
#9
Fun, fun, fun, 'til someone takes the drake scale away
"It would be nice if rewards scaled down by party size. "
Absolutely. If rewards are the same, then for some extremely rare item, my chances of getting it in a solo run are very low. By joining a party, my chances of getting that same item drop by a further factor of 4, as any of my teammates could get the item instead. Parties should not guarantee a major reduction in the odds of getting the most important award that comes from adventures.
(As noted above, healing shenanigans are also a detriment to party size- we're still in the stage where people haven't learned to check their nigh-full health and offer the heart container to their almost-dead teammates instead)
Also, a related suggestion: please don't issue rewards to someone who is still loading. I've seen hard-earned rare items go to people who just appeared, but don't start moving/responding for another 15 seconds. Durgh.
Sat, 10/30/2010 - 13:40
#10
This sounds like "Gauntlet".
This sounds like "Gauntlet". Remember that? The original?
Soloing you could earn enough food and powerups to play forever. Two really good players could also, but three or four was guaranteed quarter muching.
So they patched the game roms. Food came out in smaller amounts for soloers, and more for more players. Treasure rooms would give N times as many powerups for N players in the treasure rooms.
Yes, soloing, there's more health restores than I can use. So scaling what's available based on party size makes "gameplay sense". But does it make "world design sense"?
If a "level cycling in" is a segment of some world being maneuvered by the clockworks down to where your elevator is, then does that world segment really change based on number of people in the elevator?
Maybe. Why not. Maybe there's some sort of weight distribution system (or some other technobabble) such that different party sizes actually get different levels. Not just different drops on the same level.
Maybe there are levels for group sizes 1-4. Maybe you'll have dungeons where the next level has 3 different maps, one map intended for 1 person, one map intended for 3 people, and one map intended for 4. You wait until the map you want is lined up with the elevator before going down.
Or maybe it's not something you can control. Maybe the more people you put on an elevator affects where it takes you. Yea, you're going into a haunted house, but you're dropped off in a different location of the house.
Otherwise, yes, I like the idea of "sections that you can't get to without a party", or "Sections that you don't have to go to that are too hard to solo". Not sure how you could do that second goal though.
Sat, 10/30/2010 - 14:43
#11
4 player = 4x more mobs,
4 player = 4x more mobs, drops and exp, more dificult bosses?
Sat, 10/30/2010 - 17:28
#12
That's a great idea I second
How about the Energy costs to go down the elevator get split between players? One player will pay 10 energy to go down, while a party of two players will pay 5 energy each, and so on.
That's a great idea I second this.
Sat, 11/06/2010 - 09:08
#13
Read my mind
@ - How about the Energy costs to go down the elevator get split between players? One player will pay 10 energy to go down, while a party of two players will pay 5 energy each, and so on.
I was thinking abou this yesterday (before i ever read the topic).
Also, making so that more monsters and more itens drop for larger parties would ensure teamplay, and, for a further teamplay wise game, when a party leader selects the infamous kick button, a small window would apear at the interface, showing the name of the person, and a button to select if you want him kicked or not, so, one would be kicked only if the most part agrees, and a tye would mean a kick too (of course the one being kicked would not see the interface till the moment of the kick). Also, making so that the kick is not instan would bether up the things: When sucefully kicked, the person would not know about it till the end of the floor,a nd the whole party would need to finish the floor as it is now. Them, when the floor is complete, the player would be at a team floor, alone, where he could choose to continue playing (paying the full amount of energy), or go back to the town.
To finish things up, a pre made party system would be better: The party leaer asks for people to join before they even enter the elevator, and them, when everyone get's down the elevator, they would be at the group floor. Of course you would also be able to enter a lobby and choose to select someone there, or to enter it and wait to be called.
That's a piece of my head, for now. The brains will come later.
Sat, 11/06/2010 - 15:48
#14
If the energy cost was split,
If the energy cost was split, that would be a pretty harsh penalty for soloing. Players should be encouraged to group, but they shouldn't be penalized if they can't or don't want to. It's a tricky balance.
The kick feature is supposed to be a way to deal with troublemakers. Unfortunately it also ends up being a tool usable by troublemakers. Vote-kicking is a good idea, but you shouldn't be forced to play with someone annoying (or possibly even impeding your progress) until the end of the stage.
Sat, 11/06/2010 - 19:16
#15
How about a partial split
How about a partial split discount?
Say 1=10
2=8
3=6
4=5
Sun, 11/07/2010 - 19:52
#16
continuing the talk!
@BehindCurtai: Apartial discount should balance it well enough: play as a party, and you pay less, but not that much less from when you play a s solo.
@Srhoom: As for the kicking, well, it could be the way it's now, BUT!, you would get a energy refund based on how much party switches you pressed. So, let's say that you entered the dungeon, but got kicked right after the lift: you would get a 100% refund; If you get an iten, the smalest it may be, the refund before the first switch could be something about 90%, going till 80% till the time you're about to press it, but is kicked; Then, if you manage to go till the end of the dungeon, is going to the lift, and is kicked, you could not receive the refund, but rather would receive a message popupasking if you want to pay the diference and continue soloing, or if you want to go back to (insert name of the city), without getting any refunds.
Also, completing all about the cost of the lifts, it should really be nerfed. 10 per floor is too much! It could be 10 to enter in the first floor, then less to continue, making so that if you enter and get's out after the first floor, it would be a loss, but continuing till the end would be certain profit. If the cost are reduced even more during party play, it would make party play surelly more profitable. As the way it is now, party play nets about the same profit as solo play. The only diference is that in solo play i have some chalenge (what i love...passed a goblin floor today with almost no health to sppare, and felt great because that), and it takes more pleasurable time to finish, while during party play, the biggest the party, the fastest you finish the dungeon, the fastest you use your energy, the easier the levels are, and the less pleasurable time i spend, because i would finish it too quicly, to easilly, with players that probably would take all the health canisters, letting me useless (not even a chalenge), and ignoring me if i'm dead, also making me wait an entire day to be able to play again.
Just using this topic a little more, i will talk about death: party switches should be done this way: it only activates when ALL party member stand there (not counting the dced ones, these would be teleported to the switch after the party pushes it), and the lifts should stay the way they are now. Making it only possible to pass as a full team would make party play more enjoyable, because everyone would know that, if someone dies, it will probably slow us down, and woud take life from other member to revive it, if he can't aford the energy. So, knowing that, they would make more eforts to protect party members, receiving 1 or 2 points of damage, while the protected one would still be safe with his one health, till he can get a health recover. Also, shielding would have one more meaning. But this need to be done after the ther things about partyplay are in their places.
And, finnally, about health upgrades and health recover: Health upgrades should be done in this way: when someone get's a health canister, everynone would receive a second small yellow energy bar above the original (or a yellow aura around you energy points). If anyone get's hit, everyone would take that damage, thus removing a yellow bar/aura from your life. Well, to recover these bars, someone with full life should get a hearth (or use the pokeball), and the bar would be redstored for everyone. Of course, doing this should also improve enemies hit damage, A.I., and surelly teamplay, because no one would want to see the less armored one taking a fully charged hit from a boss, only to see what would be 1 yellow bar damag turning to be 3 or more yellow bars damage.
(talked too much, sorry>_<)
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:17
#17
I still say that you should
I still say that you should not receive a penalty to your energy cost when playing solo. A discount to parties is the same as a penalty to solo players. Even at that partial discount, you can play double the number of levels in a full group that you can solo. Waiting for a full group before doing anything (even mid-run) would become a standard.
The objective is to get players to want to play in a group, without feeling like they're forced to.
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:40
#18
So put impossible monsters midway
What i'm saying is: put hard monsters in any dungeons. those kind of monsters only killed by a group, or by a extreme player, with great connection...alright, i know that it miht seem that we are penalizing the solo players doing this, but, you know, everything that we do to reward a group party will be seen as a penalty to a solo, if you put the way you put now. If we give more crowns for party, the solos will be less favored, and if we give more chalenging rooms to groups, some solos will be less favored too (i love a chalenge)...
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:55
#19
In a very real sense,
In a very real sense, incentive to party must equal a dis-incentive to solo.
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:47
#20
Incentives are a balancing act
"In a very real sense, incentive to party must equal a dis-incentive to solo."
That is only true if the incentives are currently equal. They are not. (Especially if you adventure with kharnor, who is an absolute magnet for the scant few rare items that spawn)
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:32
#21
I don't like the idea to put
I don't like the idea to put some hard monster that only a party can kill it, but i do like the idea to put some mob that his power and health increases when 4 players are in the dungeon.
Sorry for the bad english
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:33
#22
For now, an easy fix would be
For now, an easy fix would be to increase the drop rate of items by a number equal to the number of people in the party. That would balance out the fact that items are split between multiple players.
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 19:21
#23
you're talking about equips, right, mesona?
Well, actually, a higher equip drop and rare material drop would be nice, if you're in a greater group.
About the party play, well, party hunting always need to be more profitable them solo hunting, as you're going in a group, can take stronger monsters more easilly, don't need to spend energy in revives (unless the other players are jerks, what i didn't saw till now (and i still didn't died in a group till now, so, it's quite obvious), and can fight more...what will ever let a solo player in disvantage. What i mean is: let's not say that the solo player have a disvantage, but he is the average. A group is a bonus given, making so the solo play average, and not reduced. A solo would only be in a disvantage if this game was purelly made to be played as a group (what it surelly is), and, if it was made for being played as a group, of course the solo player need to get disvantages, so, there's not quite much to do. If you consider right now, if you don't give advantages to party play, people will not want to do it, and, if you give advanteges to it, but gives also advantages to solo that balances the disvantage, it will change nothing. If you have 0, removes 10, and them ads 10, you will still have 0...people will contiune to solo, because the disvantage of soloing would be balanced with the advantage gave to the group.
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 20:33
#24
I'm talking about everything.
I'm talking about everything. Once you get decent equipment, this game is very easy to solo. I just completed my 3rd Lord Vanaduke run in a row, solo, without dying once, so your idea that the difficulty is the balancing factor doesn't hold very true.
You mention that it's difficult to balance because there will always be an advantage to either soloing or grouping, depending on what exactly is changed. I'm fine with that, and I'd prefer it to be advantageous to solo, because after all, this is a MULTIPLAYER online game. Failure to promote and take advantage of the one element that separates this type of game from single player games would defeat the purpose of playing it over Diablo 2 or Torchlight.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 06:19
#25
You're not playing Torchlight because it sucks, admit it
There's no real way to incentivize anything without punishing somebody else.
Making the game much more difficult is the only real way to scale up the need for other party members. And even then that would just punish the players who aren't that good at the game, alienating a lot of people and forcing a select few to carry other players through more difficult stages.
Kind of like Monster Hunter.
Really, the fix comes in the form of combining the Threat-O-Meter with a hidden rotation of levels not seen on the gate map.
Take things like Treasure Vaults and Arenas off the visible rotation, so that there's a chance that any stage could be one.
Bump up the rewards.
Then add stages that only appear when you're in larger groups or have an amber/red threat level, that have harder challenges.
Non-visible rotations would be universal, so every gate would have a chance at those things.
Which, while I think could allow for a slim chance of repetition of the same stage, wouldn't really be any different to the gate system currently in place that already repeats stages.
It could also be quite frustrating to someone after a specific stage, so all the rewards from these non-visible stages would have to be worth it.
But I think it could provide something interesting if the non-visible stages provided one-of-a-kind stuff, or just intense challenges.
Some invisible rotations could be alternate bosses and things. There's a lot of opportunity there.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 10:15
#26
Incentives
Did you know that if your friend stands in front of you with his shield up, you can shoot through it, thereby murdering gun puppies with style and ease at no risk to either of you (assuming his shield holds)?
Did you know that you can drop health capsules while dead to facilitate your team members reviving you?
Multi-player play works great if you have a team that are willing to work together to the advantage of everyone. When you point out ways that you can work as a team, most people are willing to play as a team, because it is personally advantageous to play in a manner that is advantageous to the group. (There was something else that I can't remember right now, but if I think of it, I'll try to mention it.)
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 12:18
#27
> Did you know that if your
> Did you know that if your friend stands in front of you with his shield up, you can shoot through it, thereby murdering gun puppies with style and ease at no risk to either of you (assuming his shield holds)?
No. That's great.
Heck, it's good for any creature. Two people with shields up as your front line, and fire through from the rear. If shields get weak, switch the shielders and retreat the front line.
> Did you know that you can drop health capsules while dead to facilitate your team members reviving you?
I didn't know you can drop health capsules. Period. How?
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 12:35
#28
BehindCurtai : I didn't know
BehindCurtai : I didn't know you can drop health capsules. Period. How?
Click on the vile/pill you want to remove at the top of your screen and then drag it down into the game window. That will then drop one unit of that type right next to your feet for someone else to pick up.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 12:37
#29
Left click drag the capsule
Left click drag the capsule off your belt, release.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 12:41
#30
You mean I don't have to use
You mean I don't have to use up / waste all of a group to pick up something new?
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 17:52
#31
Did you also know that one of
Did you also know that one of the best ways to kill the Trojan Horseman involves two players? Get one player to walk around him in circles, while another stands off to the side, waiting for the enemy to expose his tender buttocks, at which point the second player shoots him or sticks him with a sword.
In fact, lots of things die easier when one player does the distracting and the other does the murdering.
And yes! You can drop anything from your belt by dragging it from the slots. It'll just drop at your feet! Then your friends can snag it and you can open up slots without wasting things others might want.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 18:16
#32
Personally, I find Trojans
Personally, I find Trojans easiest to kill solo, with bombs.
But Tributary has the right idea. Party play should be beneficial because of that synergy you can get when in a group that isn't possible alone, not because of some extra perk that's been slapped on saying, "Please group. If you don't, we won't give you as much stuff."
As it is, the rewards do need to be tweaked, since the drop rate seems unaffected by the number of players. Once that's properly adjusted, though, I don't think anything else will really need to be done.
Also, while we're on the subject, there needs to be a way to drop items without using the mouse, and the fact that you can drop items at all needs to be a little more clear.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 20:17
#33
actually, partying now seens to remove part of the fun
Well, i know that some bosses are possible to kill while in group, while in solo they are hard as hell, but, really, grouping let the things easier, and so, remove some part of the fun. Also, in a group, you will do more profit, because of the easiness found on the levels, if you have a good group (not in equips, but in coordenation and cooperation), but you would use up your energy faster too, what means that you stop to play sooner. Actually, if a groupo could really get more treasures, but in fact worthing it (comparing, if you get 10k for a 100 energy run, you could get 15k for a 4 group 100 energy run, but making so that a coordinate team have the same chalenge as a solo, thus, improving the gameplay, well, at least for me).
-PS: finished my first solo arena!!!...using 20 energy in revives...but didi it!!!
-PPS: well, i only didn't knew that you could drop your vials WHILE dead...but did knew that you could drop your vials, shield while other attacks, and i do know that trojans are more fun to kill while soloing, because, this way, i necessarelly need to think in doing 2 thing at the same time (call his attention, and prepare an attack when his attack misses). Doing it as a group would, as you described, would be more or less like WoW: a tanker getting the attention of the monster, so, doing only one thing, while the other damages the monster, doing 1 thing also...it turns to be quite boring after some time. If this game can use more references from our beloved console games, rather then other mmos, it would rock the house!
-PPPS: Anyone here played zelda four swords, for gba? it have a nice gameplay (it's zelda, after all), with many puzzles that required the eforts of all players, each one in one section of the puzzle. This could be implemented in this game, requiring all the players to do these puzzles (all the players from the group. Dead players should get revived before attempting the puzzle). If some player is kicked or leaves the party while doing the puzzle, or before the puzzle room, a shadow would substitute the player, and do that part of the puzzle for the team, or the switchs intended to be active by them would be already active, or would get active if the player get out during the puzzle. There could be afeature too that show 3 small screens at the interface, each one showing the respective party member, or the shadow, and what they are doing, to better coordinate the puzzles. Some puzzles could have timed doors, activated by the other party member, and doors that open and close depending on the switch pressed/hit by other party member, making sot coordination the main word in the vocabullarry of a group (more of one door would clos/open, so, you would need to know how far the other member got in their paths, to ensure that they would be able to activate the next switch after you activate yours.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 22:00
#34
Zelda: 4 Swords has been
Zelda: 4 Swords has been brought up many times as a great example of a game similar to this, and congrats on your first solo arena.
Wed, 11/10/2010 - 06:10
#35
Thanks ^^
Also, good to know that people still have a good taste for games nowsdays.
Thu, 11/11/2010 - 23:59
#36
"@ - How about the Energy
"@ - How about the Energy costs to go down the elevator get split between players? One player will pay 10 energy to go down, while a party of two players will pay 5 energy each, and so on."
You know, with the new electrified floor graphics for elevators, it makes me expect it to act this way.
Fri, 11/12/2010 - 05:01
#37
this was already suggested
And already turned down, because the one that turned down thinks that we can't give such a disvantage to solo play (no ofense intented,if it sounds offensive @.@)
Actually, i quite agree with him at this part, because the reduction would be to big, but a reduction to, at most, 7 or 8 energy if you're in a group of 4 would be nice.
I agree that there should be more 2~4 player based areas, but my main concern with that is that if somebody leaves your party or disconnects, you're screwed.
I'd really like to see some party based activities though.