@Shteevie When the 2.2 neo dodge fixes come in will they still be able to doge your hard fought charge attacks?
Can i just clarify as well the current issue is that all dodge types are stacking so melee is in fact dodging bullets and vice versa giving them a massive dodge chance?
That is the main issue of Outpost PvAI and, a big problem for them. People invested so much on that build. There are many implications of a Nerf. One implication is the logical possibility of refund.
You a lot of people made big moves in their influence that would not have been able to move up the ladder without this event. Now they can post screenshots and say look at me I'm such a great player.
One thing I disagree with though is the higher you go up the ladder the influence you can win goes down. As you go up the ladder the matches should be getting harder so I would like to see the influence you can at least stay the same and not decrease as you go higher if not increase as you go higher.
You a lot of people made big moves in their influence that would not have been able to move up the ladder without this event. Now they can post screenshots and say look at me I'm such a great player.
One thing I disagree with though is the higher you go up the ladder the influence you can win goes down. As you go up the ladder the matches should be getting harder so I would like to see the influence you can at least stay the same and not decrease as you go higher if not increase as you go higher.
Always found that silly that the higher you go therefore facing tougher oppnents you get less reward.
Personally i would like to see TG and inf standardised for a win, for example
X x 1.5 Tg & Inf vs superior opponents X Tg & Inf vs equal opponents X x 0.5 TG & Inf vs inferior opponents
Current system is all over the shop and makes no sence at all!
@DLich Wow, can't believe you dug up and found that buried post. Thanks for the clarification. I still stand by my original post and agree with @MorpheusOfZion that it's completely nonsensical for zombies to ignore the defenders.
Proud member of Mavericks OG, a top 3 global GW and challenge guild. Message me on the forums or on Line (ID: jayztwdnml) if you're interested in joining the Mavericks family of guilds.
One of the more fun challenge missions are those that involve walkers and Freemen. Personally, I think it is much better when Freemen and walkers kill each other than when I have to kill Freemen before they kill me. In outpost, it would be the same if walkers also attack the defenders. It will open options on strategy. I can open the gate and then go to a corner where I can effectively defend myself while keeping ready for the exact moment defenders are distracted by the walkers then I can grab the loot and go. If I need the Influence Points to unlock something in the shop, then I can raid stronger defenders while increasing the possibility of avoiding hospital time with the distraction provided by the outsider walkers.
-It would be nonsensical to level up your defending walkers if they could be used against the defenders. I like the idea in concept, but I know a lot of players would be upset that they had spent resources on helping their defenders lose, no matter how difficult of a trick it is to pull off.
Blood and Gore Shirt
-It's a cool idea that isn't reflected in the game. It couldn't be "walker invisibility" that lasts all mission, though - too exploitable. I'll add it to the hopper and see if we can use it.
Diminishing Influence rewards
-The basic idea is to have many properties of a ELO system. In these, the amount gained is based on the loser's score relative to your own. A higher ranked player will win less than the lower-ranked player in the match, because of the relative difficulty in earning that win. And, as you go up, it becomes less likely that we find you a match that is higher still, and so you will naturally be earning smaller amounts as you climb to the top.
Without a diminishing returns system like this, achievement tiers would get farther and farther apart, and individual points would lose meaning.
All of this said, though, influence right now is a poor indicator of past performance. We want to base rewards off of it more completely, but that won't happen in 2.2. I have plans for what will happen when we adjust the system again next time, and I'll be using the data from this cycle and the next few to determine if those plans are appropriate.
Dodge issues
-It's my understanding that Bullet Dodge is now only dodging bullets, and that regular Dodge only ever dodged non-bullets. If you have experiences to the contrary, we'd love to get some data on that so we can track down any possible remaining bugs. I do think that charge attacks should have a favorable match-up to dodges, since you get fewer of them. I'll look and see if anything like this was previously proposed or on the backlog for implementation. Thanks for the suggestion!
Development Team Member - The Walking Dead: No Man's Land Please note: Development is a fluid process, and suggestions and implementation take time and iteration. Any discussion of future features, deadlines, updates, balance changes, and such should be considered prospective and subject to change.
Outsider Walkers are not defender's walkers. Players did not level them up. They were not captured in the first place. But the level of Outsider Walkers now are such that they have been related to the level of the Captured Walkers. If the problem is how to determine the level of Outsider Walkers then the best way is to make it random. That way, it is more realistic and faithful to the comics and the show.
I support the search for ways to resolve the issue of overpowered excellent Dodgers. I understand that one solution being looked into is un-stack %Luck in weapons to total %Dodge. But a word of caution. Excellent Dodgers did not happen by chance. Players spent real money developing them. That Nerf have huge implication to players who developed their teams based on the NML game premise of trait stacking, a build that has been encouraged in the first place by the sale of weapons with gold Luck. While we cannot provide proof for having spent gold leveling up weapons with Luck for the purpose of increasing Dodge. We have receipts for purchase of weapons with Luck. Players may invoke consumer rights on that. It is like we purchased a car because it has features that increase speed at a price suitable for that great feature then suddenly my car no longer has that feature because the seller removed it. Under Consumer Rights, specifically, Consumer Protection, that can be considered "faulty product" or "products that developed a fault" and we are entitled to a refund under the law.
@MorpheusOfZion Trust me when I say that we have thoroughly examined this issue from the perspective you describe. I won't go into your legal arguments [which do come off as something like a threat] except to say that the definitions of value for virtual goods are clear and we are not exposed to liability in that way.
This is not to say that we will be rendering those items useless. Rather, we're working to keep them viable while improving the viability of other items in comparison. We're doing this to increase the lifespan of the game, both from an overall and an individual player's perspective. With this change, much more of the game's current and future content becomes relevant again. Players with these items will maintain interest in the game longer in many cases. Players without these items can be assured that they will still advance and compete without having access to the same old items that only top players can get.
We don't take changes like these lightly. Not counting discussions here on the forums, I would guess that the planning for this change has consumed roughly a thousand man-hours, involving people in every discipline on the team, and members of the company on and outside the dev team for NML. We are agreed that this is the best course of action both for the short and long term success of the game.
Development Team Member - The Walking Dead: No Man's Land Please note: Development is a fluid process, and suggestions and implementation take time and iteration. Any discussion of future features, deadlines, updates, balance changes, and such should be considered prospective and subject to change.
Logically walkers are captured and not tamed. I guess that's one of the reasons why its called a "pit" - and not "rehab". There are also the gates to protect the defenders from the walkers.
I liked the idea of having to kill only one wave of walkers before entering through the gates, but I have to admit being immediately sandwiched between the undead and defenders is challenging. I completely agree with the idea of having the walkers hunt down both attackers and defenders at the same time.
@Shteevie It was never intended as threat. It was cautionary advice, the complete opposite. If threat is south, caution is north. When one cautions another, the former wants the latter to stay out of harm. If one threatens another, the former is ready to harm the latter.
Threatening you with class suit? Of course not! Giving you a word of caution which is in order? Yes. It is very real. I know of at least one country where the internet law defines virtual goods exactly as I understand it.
You and your team are giving us a glimpse of your passion and commitment. I know, work is an invisible limb of man or woman. The fruits of his labor defines a man. I do not also take changes to this game lightly.
Even though I agree with you that all these changes haven't made outposts better and not just the the last update but the last several, you have been here long enough to know that they always go forward and not backwards.
I feel your frustration though. I liked then simple and straightforward.
Threatening the devs with a class action lawsuit lol. Would you file in Finland or In the country you live in? I thought I've seen everything on this forum.
I know a lot of people hate rural map with the double sandbags but I'm curious why the map was changed so that you can't place defenders down that first vertical column on the left. I used to use a defense that needed to place a defender in that space that's now a void for placing defenders. I get that was supposed to be an improvement but I'm not sure how.
@MorpheusOfZion Thanks for the glimpse into your thought process. How hastily or thoughtfully we plan updates is a valid concern - I dare say that we have been moving kind of fast. Some areas of the game may seem completely transformed in 2.2, such as the way we present the new playable content.
I fully expect to be called out when the promises and the realities don't align. But in the same way that I know that parts of the playerbase are looking for soft targets for their barbs, I need to find the right balance between defensive and pre-emptive. We're all going to see change in real time. How we choose to discuss it is a choice we all make over and over again.
Development Team Member - The Walking Dead: No Man's Land Please note: Development is a fluid process, and suggestions and implementation take time and iteration. Any discussion of future features, deadlines, updates, balance changes, and such should be considered prospective and subject to change.
I agree, in fact, there's a player whose favorite past time is unleashing barbs. I think he/she finds pleasure on that. Perhaps he/she is very young or something really bad happened to him/her while he/she was very young and still carries the burden now. To feel better, he/she needs to channel negative emotions on something else, a Defense Mechanism called Displacement in Psychology. In this case, it is the forum. But he/she should be reminded that he/she is not far enough from the arms of the law. Online libel is something he/she can be liable for in here. There are legal precedence on this. And, for virtual goods, Chapter 3 of UK's Consumer Rights Act of 2015 is very applicable. There are also precedence in UK on jurisdiction, see International Commercial Litigation.
With forthcoming updates, will there be any further enhancements to the importance of Influence points? I understand different players have different motivations for participating in Outposts. But beyond just weekend Outpost events, I feel that in order for longevity's sake, Influence has to mean something (the cycle rewards itself are somewhat lackluster in my opinion). There's plenty of players who have made it clear they don't care for Influence pts., and have strategically chosen the avenue of focusing on TG's. I always go for all 3 objectives probably out of some misplaced sense of honor fueled by my sheer enjoyment doing raids. Sure, TG's are a very important motivating factor for me with Influence pts being the byproduct, but at the end of the day, what's the point of having Influence? (I ask this both philosophically and practically). If the game is to encourage acquiring influence, then having Influence should really mean something. I saw but a glimmer of that Re: Tg shop Influence requirement for items, but that was at 3k only, no? I thought I read somewhere that Influence will be more important. Yet, I'm not quite grasping how it's so.
Yeah i totally agree with @Movado if the influence doesnt really mean anything, i probably purposely reduce mine so i can easily raid TG instead. Currently i keep being match to certain same player which i cant avoid heavily injury even if i won.
@Shteevie i keep searching for 20 times, that 200 TG, and all i get was 2 same enemy repeatedly ?Seriously ? there only 2 outpost i can find and someone im unable to defeat with my current gear ? (I tried at least 5 time against each 1 of them during the weekend event)
The rewards for collecting Influence have to be reflected in the very real chance of long hospital time. A couple of k TG fortnightly bonus just doesn't justify the amount of time in hospital hospital. It's that risk v reward scenario. The higher the risk, the better the reward should be!
“You never know how strong you are until being strong is your only option.” (Bob Marley)
I feel so sorry for this guy. All my search result only shown 4 guy since Sunday. Only this person i can raid without taking injury. (There 2 i cant win since i dont have gold spread to takedown all their opponent in 1 turn)
NG, how did the matchmaking only have 4 suitable opponent for me ?
@KelvSG That is pretty weird, but you do have a very high influence rating and a very high player level. Maybe the others were all on their shield from when you beat them before?
Development Team Member - The Walking Dead: No Man's Land Please note: Development is a fluid process, and suggestions and implementation take time and iteration. Any discussion of future features, deadlines, updates, balance changes, and such should be considered prospective and subject to change.
Influence will be adjusted to have a different effect on the post-match TG rewards, and we're playing around with the idea of phasing out the end-of-cycle rewards and giving you the extra up front when you win. This way, people don't just sit on a high-ish Influence rating, and actually need to actively play, but those that play will get better rewards they can use right away instead of waiting for a small-ish reward every 2 weeks.
This is just in the planning stages, so it's not decided to be happening for sure, and definitely not for 2.2, but it's an example of an idea that shows that we have similar thoughts about the role of Influence going forward.
Development Team Member - The Walking Dead: No Man's Land Please note: Development is a fluid process, and suggestions and implementation take time and iteration. Any discussion of future features, deadlines, updates, balance changes, and such should be considered prospective and subject to change.
Comments
When the 2.2 neo dodge fixes come in will they still be able to doge your hard fought charge attacks?
Can i just clarify as well the current issue is that all dodge types are stacking so melee is in fact dodging bullets and vice versa giving them a massive dodge chance?
One thing I disagree with though is the higher you go up the ladder the influence you can win goes down. As you go up the ladder the matches should be getting harder so I would like to see the influence you can at least stay the same and not decrease as you go higher if not increase as you go higher.
Personally i would like to see TG and inf standardised for a win, for example
X x 1.5 Tg & Inf vs superior opponents
X Tg & Inf vs equal opponents
X x 0.5 TG & Inf vs inferior opponents
Current system is all over the shop and makes no sence at all!
Message me on the forums or on Line (ID: jayztwdnml) if you're interested in joining the Mavericks family of guilds.
Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGSePrANMyf_S_YKJyfJodg
Strategy compendium: https://forums.nextgames.com/walkingdead/discussion/41787/jayzs-nml-strategy-compendium
-It would be nonsensical to level up your defending walkers if they could be used against the defenders. I like the idea in concept, but I know a lot of players would be upset that they had spent resources on helping their defenders lose, no matter how difficult of a trick it is to pull off.
-It's a cool idea that isn't reflected in the game. It couldn't be "walker invisibility" that lasts all mission, though - too exploitable. I'll add it to the hopper and see if we can use it.
-The basic idea is to have many properties of a ELO system. In these, the amount gained is based on the loser's score relative to your own. A higher ranked player will win less than the lower-ranked player in the match, because of the relative difficulty in earning that win. And, as you go up, it becomes less likely that we find you a match that is higher still, and so you will naturally be earning smaller amounts as you climb to the top.
Without a diminishing returns system like this, achievement tiers would get farther and farther apart, and individual points would lose meaning.
All of this said, though, influence right now is a poor indicator of past performance. We want to base rewards off of it more completely, but that won't happen in 2.2. I have plans for what will happen when we adjust the system again next time, and I'll be using the data from this cycle and the next few to determine if those plans are appropriate.
-It's my understanding that Bullet Dodge is now only dodging bullets, and that regular Dodge only ever dodged non-bullets. If you have experiences to the contrary, we'd love to get some data on that so we can track down any possible remaining bugs. I do think that charge attacks should have a favorable match-up to dodges, since you get fewer of them. I'll look and see if anything like this was previously proposed or on the backlog for implementation. Thanks for the suggestion!
Please note: Development is a fluid process, and suggestions and implementation take time and iteration. Any discussion of future features, deadlines, updates, balance changes, and such should be considered prospective and subject to change.
Trust me when I say that we have thoroughly examined this issue from the perspective you describe. I won't go into your legal arguments [which do come off as something like a threat] except to say that the definitions of value for virtual goods are clear and we are not exposed to liability in that way.
This is not to say that we will be rendering those items useless. Rather, we're working to keep them viable while improving the viability of other items in comparison. We're doing this to increase the lifespan of the game, both from an overall and an individual player's perspective. With this change, much more of the game's current and future content becomes relevant again. Players with these items will maintain interest in the game longer in many cases. Players without these items can be assured that they will still advance and compete without having access to the same old items that only top players can get.
We don't take changes like these lightly. Not counting discussions here on the forums, I would guess that the planning for this change has consumed roughly a thousand man-hours, involving people in every discipline on the team, and members of the company on and outside the dev team for NML. We are agreed that this is the best course of action both for the short and long term success of the game.
Please note: Development is a fluid process, and suggestions and implementation take time and iteration. Any discussion of future features, deadlines, updates, balance changes, and such should be considered prospective and subject to change.
I liked the idea of having to kill only one wave of walkers before entering through the gates, but I have to admit being immediately sandwiched between the undead and defenders is challenging. I completely agree with the idea of having the walkers hunt down both attackers and defenders at the same time.
It was never intended as threat. It was cautionary advice, the complete opposite. If threat is south, caution is north. When one cautions another, the former wants the latter to stay out of harm. If one threatens another, the former is ready to harm the latter.
Threatening you with class suit? Of course not! Giving you a word of caution which is in order? Yes. It is very real. I know of at least one country where the internet law defines virtual goods exactly as I understand it.
You and your team are giving us a glimpse of your passion and commitment. I know, work is an invisible limb of man or woman. The fruits of his labor defines a man. I do not also take changes to this game lightly.
I feel your frustration though. I liked then simple and straightforward.
I know a lot of people hate rural map with the double sandbags but I'm curious why the map was changed so that you can't place defenders down that first vertical column on the left. I used to use a defense that needed to place a defender in that space that's now a void for placing defenders. I get that was supposed to be an improvement but I'm not sure how.
Thanks for the glimpse into your thought process. How hastily or thoughtfully we plan updates is a valid concern - I dare say that we have been moving kind of fast. Some areas of the game may seem completely transformed in 2.2, such as the way we present the new playable content.
I fully expect to be called out when the promises and the realities don't align. But in the same way that I know that parts of the playerbase are looking for soft targets for their barbs, I need to find the right balance between defensive and pre-emptive. We're all going to see change in real time. How we choose to discuss it is a choice we all make over and over again.
Please note: Development is a fluid process, and suggestions and implementation take time and iteration. Any discussion of future features, deadlines, updates, balance changes, and such should be considered prospective and subject to change.
Want a good chance at not playing against an outpost using rural farm map 3? Look for outposts that don't have 1 bruiser and 2 ranged opponents.
Just focus on what you're seeing when you do select an outpost to battle.
You can't skip but you can press the X button to cancel. Play outposts that have 350-430 influence and no bruiser and you'll do better.
MAVERICK'S 1 Million Star Club | OG | USA | NOC
Analyze This with ALF4reals | v1 | v2 | v3 |
| My YouTube Videos | My 1st Interview | Best Analogy Award!! |
Freemium... the "mium" is latin for 'not really'
MAVERICK'S 1 Million Star Club | OG | USA | NOC
Analyze This with ALF4reals | v1 | v2 | v3 |
| My YouTube Videos | My 1st Interview | Best Analogy Award!! |
Freemium... the "mium" is latin for 'not really'
It's that risk v reward scenario. The higher the risk, the better the reward should be!
NG, how did the matchmaking only have 4 suitable opponent for me ?
That is pretty weird, but you do have a very high influence rating and a very high player level. Maybe the others were all on their shield from when you beat them before?
Please note: Development is a fluid process, and suggestions and implementation take time and iteration. Any discussion of future features, deadlines, updates, balance changes, and such should be considered prospective and subject to change.
This is just in the planning stages, so it's not decided to be happening for sure, and definitely not for 2.2, but it's an example of an idea that shows that we have similar thoughts about the role of Influence going forward.
Please note: Development is a fluid process, and suggestions and implementation take time and iteration. Any discussion of future features, deadlines, updates, balance changes, and such should be considered prospective and subject to change.