Yeah.... I hear there was one who actually used to hate the idea of a clamp.... that he now toes the line on.. "over and over" where "people have just stopped taking him seriously and ignore what he has to say about the topic because his opinion has lost its impact" ...or something like that.
If you’re referring to proxy I could be mistaken but I thought he made that change in opinion prior … I could be wrong
It was meant to be sorta funny But in serious those who always criticize and have nothing good to say about the game are just as bad as those who are always sticking up for the devs no matter if it’s a bad decision or not. Constructive criticism is good for the game just as praise is .. if I don’t like the way something is I voice it if I like how something is I tell the devs I like it. The ones that can’t be taken seriously are the ones that are either always negative or always positive
Even harking back to the historical discussions, they often at times revolved around whether or not the clamp would be optional or mandatory. Most people even back then tried to say that the clamp should have been optional and most people still agree in an ideal world it would be, because who doesn't like "options". Most of us endorsed an optional clamp, even back then However, the issues with an optional system were still abundantly obvious, population issues, queue times, all of that still existed even back then to at least an extent it registered as a problem in its infancy. The truth is, people just weren't running the content, for the content, they were running it for "feats", and rare styles, which also included feats. An unclamped environment facilitated the player desire to get the feats with the least amount of resistance and effort possible while also facilitating a quick instance to try your luck on that rare raid style you could only try to get once a week or once a day for smaller instance styles. The quicker you could get content done, the quicker you could move through more content trying for feats or styles you needed.Even now in various commentary you can see this exact same desire for "absolute efficiency above all else" persists amongst players. Very little content was run for "aesthetic fun", so eventually lots of content was run with heavy infrequency outside of specific instances that still gave things that players could sell. Because an optional system would have provided two paths, one with minimal resistance and the other with maximum resistance the question arose, even back then "who would take the maximum resistance path voluntarily. So with that in mind the discussions quickly moved in to two facets. - what would it actually take to make someone run with maximum resistance rather than minimal resistance; and. - it was more likely than not that the clamp would never be optional but would only ever be mandatory for those reasons. This is why it was generally speaking opposed by many players, because people are not particularly in favor of a mandatory clamp, at least not theoretically, even when you look at the arguments now, you'll see it often devolves in to a "just make it an option argument". With the optional argument you always run in to problems surrounding the division of the population and resultant queue impacts, that are downplayed but aren't as easily overcome because players will just take the path of least resistance when given the choice, especially when that path doesn't rob them of any opportunity. Out of all of this of course, was the birth of the "mandatory stat clamp" we all knew was probably coming at some point, In exchange for that, a question we all asked historically "what would it take to make someone play clamped" we got unlimited loot locks and a more holistic way to spend our source marks through a variety of content. Initially they were going to take this mandatory setting even further through only providing source marks in EEG, a position they ultimately backed out of, thus making it at least a little more optional, at least in so far as you could just choose not to play EEG, but that does come at a cost of your own progress elsewhere. The byproduct of all of this of course was, content based performance feats became 'harder' as a result of the clamp and this was always another point raised historically "how easy should a feat ever get based on player progress". To this day, people are still arguing about this point when they talk about loosening the clamp from where it currently rests, all the way through to its complete removal, whether permanently or optionally. Because really that's what we're talking about when we talk about making content "easier" by reducing the clamp. It is very rarely one would ever raise loosening the clamp merely for content completion, it always almost certainly always relate to a feat or feats. As a subsequent alternate byproduct of course you had some feats get easier, RNG based content feats typically became easier when content became more active, you're not getting RNG based content feats when you can't run the content, which was a big problem under the prior setting and you can't easily get RNG based style feats when you're only allowed to run content once a week before being locked. So there was definitely give and take there. Under the prior setting there were massive problems with game activity with newer players coming through having severe difficulty running old content, let alone getting the feats, You almost entirely relied on your league or friend network to get old content done, the irony of that is you still see complaints today about having to rely on a leagues despite the new system being better and friendlier towards PUGS. When they attempted to implement a clamp the first time around I was heavily involved in its opposition, for several reasons really, but primarily because the game wasn't where it was when it was introduced this next time around, the population wasn't as bad, the queue times weren't as bad, so the timing to implement it was probably just wrong, I don't regret opposing it on that occasion. Since that time though and up until when the clamp was introduced 2 years ago, the game only got progressively worse when it came to EEG content activity, it was at breaking point and something had to be done, so yes at that point I changed my view and agreed the clamp was a good idea, because that was the objective truth of the matter, continuing to oppose the clamp at that juncture would have been delusional and a denial of the reality of the challenges confronting us as players. The natural questions arose again, what are we getting in exchange and is it mandatory? The answer was of course it will be mandatory, because they don't want players splitting off in to categories of content, affecting queue times and participation in either category really, so mandatory was only ever going to be the answer. The next question that arose, what are we getting, was clearly answered, unlimited loot locks, unlimited source marks and more rewards to spend the source marks on, an acceptable compromise. Although on a theoretical level I agree to an optional clamping system, I can't see it ever getting past the population issue. The population would have to be so healthy that the splitting of the queues was so utterly unnoticeable that it caused zero issue and I can't see that being the case, no matter what is said by another player, some servers and factions get complaints about population already, even in our current system, imagine splitting it further. So you're almost pushed back in to that setting of making it "mandatory unclamped" or leaving it "mandatory clamped", and we've then just run the circle in its entirety, they're just not going to take off the clamp, although as a player you can never discount anything ever happening, I just don't see it. GhostRyder likes to make me out as a sycophant because he's angry I oppose the clamp more generally, I've been here 13 years, since the very beginning, a normal persons views do change during the course of a 13 year period and that isn't surprising nor is it unreasonable. An unreasonable person wouldn't change their position when confronted with additional/changing data or a changing environment. My view with respect to the clamp would change back as well if there was enough evidence to suggest that the current system (the clamped one) is broken or dysfunctional that it required its complete removal, but that evidence isn't there, so I maintain my current viewpoint on the matter. My history here is very transparent, every now and again some new player like GhostRyder will come out of the wood work pretending to have a full grasp on the history of the game and of prior interactions, while truly knowing absolutely nothing about the matter, because they've only been playing and interacting on here for about 5 minutes.
And if I was the only one.... that might actually mean something.... ....or if it was just the clamp Is there worse than you?... Sure, there is.
As Mepps usually quotes: "Plans can always change". So, I don't think it's a good idea to put a time frame (next week, coming weeks, ect) on when we will get a development update/producer's letter. When the devs are ready to update us, they will.
I get your passion for it being unclamped but it’s unfair to call proxy a sycophant when he has publicly been at odds with devs on other decisions. He just happens to disagree with you here … I disagree with you as well just not as passionately as proxy does. There the clamp to me was a miss for a different reason.
Couple points I’d like to touch on that you mentioned Optional- I think and optional method is not needed at all and would only be ok with it as appeasement … I’d personally make it a walk in where you can take 1-8 players and the only thing you get out of it is the enjoyment of wrecking shop on the content no feats gear styles etc. I’d be gol if styles that weren’t associated with a feat dropped tho. About the clamp itself I feel like it was a miss because the incentive to run it is minimal for those who have been playing dc for years causing the queue times for some raids to be slow especially if you’re random queuing … it needs to be more than source marks and I wish they could have figured a way to get us in that old content. But it would cause each tier or piece of content to have a reason to be there and at this point it doesn’t seem they are willing to do that. They needed to do stuff like… run tier 3 content and each piece gets you more nth metal or more ally favor .. catalysts etc … but it would require the content to be loot locked .. I’m all for it to being loot locked for that and still allowing you to farm it for source marks. They could out that kinda stuff in your on duty and it gives you a treasure chest much like omnibus does … this kinda thing could be a day by day rotation keeping older content alive. Regarding what you said about making feats easier as you leveled up which was becoming an issue .. I disliked the idea of the feats being easier once you level past the content. Things like the odyssey feat the one piece feat all were trivialized one dlc later and it was sad. This is part of the reason I began wanting a clamp. However i put the blame mostly on the devs for the level of thinking that the feats should be made easier as yoh kevel .. you might disagree but mepps himself said several times in different streams that the feats would get easier as you level past the content meaning once a new dlc is dropped he’s said it for several different dlc show case streams … I get they changed their mind but they created that beast, so they get to take some ownership of that being thrown in their own faces … but I also feel like those who are against the clamp need to realize that there is no going back now sure go a head and let them know about it. But to me it was ridiculous to trivialize feats. Thats all I really wanted to touch on.. clamp was needed in my opinion but I feel was executed poorly. That sums it up.
I largely agree with you. I was going to say but my post was getting really long as is, that an optional system only really works as an appeasement because the only way to overcome the population issues splitting the queues is to make the unclamped version less appealing, so as you say, you get no reward or feats from it and it is merely only there for the fun of it. I also agree that the rewards are not really there if they really want EEG to take off, a few things even I've mentioned elsewhere at times is adjusted the longer raids to reward more source marks in the opposite fashion to their adjustments of the shorter ones (Doomsday and FOS3). They should also make the omnibus cache rewards daily rather than weekly and they should have a daily scheduled instance that provides rewards for running it, basically a never-ending EEG spotlight on rotation. The reward could be ally favor, nth metal, qwarks and other things EG players clearly want. You're probably also right about the developers creating the beast that was thrown in their face with respect to feats getting easier with progression, that is the argument I mentioned when I said "how much easier should feats get", at the moment we have the 3DLC window and then rapidly decreasing progress as it ages through EEG, realistically that probably is a reasonable compromise between the old system and the new system that allows feats to still get somewhat easier with progress while never entirely trivializing the feats or the content.
Like I said... There is worse than he. For him, is not about the quantity... it's the quality. An NFL ref throwing a game can always say he is impartial by making more less meaningful calls against the favored team... and calls at key times. Just had a discussion with him about source marks awarded in end game.... a policy he was "at odds with devs" on that decision.. while it was being discussed... when it became policy... HE ARGUED FOR IT.... now that it's not policy anymore... he's not as passionate. Does that make him a sycophant (as much as others who seem to argue for the status quo to the point you have to question if they get paid for it)... maybe, maybe not... But, in my opinion, it does throw most of his opinions into the "Don't Really Trust It" pile.
Too late to edit in: Also... It is more of a consensus thing, Like I said... It ain't just me. When enough people start pointing out the same pattern... It becomes a noticeable pattern.
Feats became trivialized the moment they added them with the purchase of TCs. And no one, besides the gate-keepers, deemed earning a feat outside the parameter of being clamped as "trivialized". Most just view it as being earned. - "NO!! A FEAT IS ONLY TRULY EARNED WITHIN 15 CR OF THE CONTENT!!! NO FEATS OTHER THAN THAT ARE ALLOWED" - "How many levels of CR were you when you earned that 'Open 25 TCs feat'?"
Careful.. 2 years ago I got in trouble for saying/claiming this. So apparently this is not true. Lol.
WHAT has happened to the Producer Letter thread? WHAT is going on here? How did we divert to the unmentionable subject here on this thread about the Producer Letter, namely the LACK thereof? I know the unmentionable subject is the topic dejur but I really, really want to escape it’s hideous tentacles in other threads. I hate the unmentionable subject, it took away from me what is important to me in this game or any game, I don’t care about “unlimited this or unlimited that” …, I just want to avoid it which I can in End Game, where I can play DCUO the way DCUO was intended to be played. All without having the unmentionable subject constantly shoved in my face. So, Let’s hope that the Producer’s Letter will be coming today or tomorrow or the next, and that it will give us details that drum up excitement for what year 2024 has to offer.
Or maybe seeing that even this thread turned to this subject... That maybe this subject should be addressed in the Producer's Letter.
I know im completely wrong for hoping for this, but man wouldn’t it be sweet if they announced theyre adding remixes to powers, for example you hit level 10 and you get gernade for gadgets, you hit level 15 you unlock a stronger effect/passive for grenade that you can chose if you want to use, then at level 25 you unlock another effect.. Smite does this & they balance it by only allowing you to select 1 remix on your armor slots. But as we have pointed out, theres no money in that
And... I'm tired of that excuse. Make a game that people want to play.. and they will spend money on it. I just spent $20 on CoD to make one of my characters look like Highlander from The Boys... It wasn't a "your character is too powerful... so we have to weaken him... but here's some bullets augments you can buy to increase his strength" scheme... It's just fun for the sake of fun. Not rocket science.
well i heard it with my own ears, so they can say whatever they want.. if i get in any trouble over it …its just their own dishonesty and pettiness, i know what i heard several times..
