I imagine it’s set up the way it currently is to minimize unique instances to reduce overall server load, the same reason they didn’t implement single-player / private games initially, to get as many people in each instance as possible (hunt:showdown recently reduced game duration from 60 to 45 minutes for this very reason). Considering that’s not really an issue any more, they could certainly entertain custom map selection.
I wouldn’t complain about this at all if they also added procedural map generation, but without that it would be very annoying. As far as realism goes, I mean…why are we running the same missions over and over again? Why does the mission board have the same mission in multiple locations at the same time, on different difficulties? The whole mission board system is pretty silly imo and unless they add real procedural generation I think they’d be better off making missions fully customizable a la VT2.
Did you see that in Vermintide 2?
I never had the impression that it was like that (outside of maps with unintended skips that would cut down the mission time to 2 min or so).
Assuming that you played Vermintide 2 before, which allows you to choose any mission at any difficulty at any time, once you have the difficulty unlocked.
Vermintide 2 gave you an increased reward for queueing random though if I remember correctly.
I think a ton of people (me included) vastly just hit quickplay which would land them in less populated missions pretty commonly. Not to mention if one of melks missions was to do quickplay to encourage this sort of behavior as well. Should stop anything from being orphaned too badly.
1 Like
Correct. So why not just let people choose their mission in Darktide as well, and give a bit of a bonus for playing quickplay?
Wouldn’t that be a much better option, than getting no bonus for quickplay and having no (or limited) choice regarding the missions?
2 Likes
Asking “why did you think I said players should be able to do one thing and but not in this way” when you created a thread about “players should be able to do one thing but not in this way” is kind of a self-answering question in-context, yeah?
What are you even saying here?
None of this rebuts the idea I posted though? Fatshark could handily steal the entire mission distribution/selection idea from DRG, and it wouldn’t matter at all to the “”“”“”“”“”“”“lore”“”“”“”“”“”" of Darktide.
Not really. Having only quickplay and full mission choice sets up a dichotomy of either being able to choose your mission à la carte or getting a completely random mission which may be a map or modifier you absolutely hate but a bonus reward.
Having ~10 different randomized missions to choose from allows you to easily avoid the ones you don’t want while giving you something that’s close enough to what you do want to play almost guaranteed. Then you don’t need to give people bonus rewards to play random.
It also facilitates the idea of global events like blackouts.
1 Like
I’d rather they randomise/rotate secondaries and conditions based on zones but give selection on missions and difficulties. Because Fatshark are bad with anything that isn’t straight RNG, so if it’s still RNG mission selection we’re going to get 3 missions on the board 50% of the time despite 10-12 slots. (You know, what’s happening right now.)
You say that people would play only the most efficient mission if you gave them the option to freely choose.
However, that is not something i think is true, and not something we see in other games like Vermintide 2.
Then you argued, that the reason for people in V2 NOT acting the way you predicted, is due to an increased reward for quickplay.
Now you argue against quickplay, because you might get a map or modifier that you do not like (disliked map can also happen in V2), but it was you, who said that quickplay saved V2 from people only playing efficient maps.
In Darktide, books are a modifier and there are special conditions.
Why not just add the option to choose a modifier for quickplay (pick difficulty and a special condition/type of books)?
Let people play the exact mission they want.
And if they want to play a mission with a specific condition, or specific books, let them play a random mission with that modifier.
If they do not care, let them play a random mission with a random modifier.
Where would be the problem with that?
So we are back to people just being able to play what is most efficient (or 2nd most efficient), ruining your entire concept, according to your own argument.
Why would you not do that? It would help to fill up missions that do not yet have 4 players.
You could also have that with quickplay.
Like i said, give people the choice to pick a modifier for quickplay.
Out of a pool of, let‘s say 1 - 2 available special conditions at a time, since they are global events.
1 Like
randomness is for players, control is for gamers
I’m a player playing games, others are gamers gaming systems
There’s enough randomness in the mission, I don’t want randomness in choosing a mission.
If you don’t want any control over doing anything, go read a book or watch a movie.
That phrase is 100% pretentious gerrymandering, literally calling everyone that doesn’t agree with you a (in your mind) derogatory term.
i just hope that FS doesnt change it, they can give us more player agency for crafting and also difficulty choices, but not Map or conditions choice.
Conclusion is: some like it others dont. But the game is made how its made and afaik FS does like Randomness in their games, dont they?
So i hope they dont change their philosophy about that no matter how loud the other side is.
Isn’t randomness random? The RNG of the board is terrible variety wise, even if you could choose what you wanted to play. Which is somehow a bad thing, despite you literally admitting to only playing VT2 how you wanted to, because it let you. This is probably one of the more annoying aspects of the game we get no feedback on, like not even them fixing scenarios that are broken like vent purge. It just disappeared with no mention.
A followup from my explanation on reaching post-itemisation, you get less speedrunning at that point because speed running is only really a thing when players want to maximise the gain of resources or items. Resources are a bit too random in DT, and items are stuck to timers.
If people do reach BiS and keep playing, they’re usually playing just to play, they’re generally much more chill than people who rush through maps for rewards and rage when anything disrupts their “efficiency”.
1 Like
That article says that randomness can be both useful and also not necessary in many games. Since Darktide already has a fair bit of RNG in-game with it’s containers, Director, and other in-mission mechanics, adding more RNG around that is frankly excessive.
but thats exactly why i linked it, at some places i hate the RNG like everyone else, but at specifically this point i like it, but with the exception of difficulty that i excluded.
maybe a good fix would be the following:
difficulty: player select
map/objective: RNG but if the player has any contracts or in general stuff to do on a specific map, the player should be able to start a mission on this map as long as he/she is required to achieve something on that specific map.
would be fine for me
2 Likes
I’d be ok with this, as long as they:
- Remove mission specific contracts
- All difficulties have a Grim, a Scripture and a ‘No Secondary Objective’ mission available at all times.
Not sure about conditions, I really like playing high intensity, but not the worst thing if that remained random.