安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
He doesn't lack firepower, he lacks AoE.
Don't try to use your lack of knowledge as an excuse though.
Step 1, locate and obtain DRG Save Editor.
Step 2, back up your save file, load it into DRG Save Editor, then assign yourself as many Blank Cores as you'd like.
Step 3, profit.
You can still earn your OCs and cosmetics by completing events like normal, and still work/grind for the materials required to craft them at the forge, but never need to worry about having enough of the time-gated Blank Cores to allow you to claim a reward from Machine Events.
If one is really impatient, they could just give themselves all OCs too.
Not my cup of jam, but to each their own.
The developers seem keen on keeping the current system, so it falls to the player to decide what they want to do with their save file.
You can only unlock a certain amount of cores per week. This is fine for most people, but there are others that wish to continue playing yet have 0 cores and have reached this weekly maximum. All OP and others want is for them to remove this timegating so you can unlock as many cores as you like, without the fear of missing out on getting an OC from an event.
I don't even have a dog in this fight, I have unlocked everything worthwhile a long time ago, but I agree this part of the game is not well-designed. Make "weekly" assignments repeatable so you can play the game at your pace.
Then the very same people who make these threads would be back here in short order, complaining that they don't have anything left to unlock.
Have some faith in game devs. They don't put these mechanics in lightly, or just to annoy you. Just because some (or even most) people don't "want" a feature doesn't make it bad game design. Most people have no idea what they actually want, and if they got what they thought they wanted; they'd realize they never wanted it at all.
Tons of games use timegating, even single player games, it'd be easier to make a list of the games that don't timegate. Game dev's don't do it because they are evil or incompetent; they do it because it works.
then when they added in the contracts for rewards, I would do the contracts then stop playing, as playing without a contract felt meaningless.
Well that wouldn't be true in my case because I certainly was annoyed by this and here I am 900 hours later with everything useful unlocked at at like 50-100 hours(ish?). Locking progress behind timegating is just too reminiscent of crappy mobile games... time should not be a mechanic to halt progress.
At the end of the day, it's a change that I feel would be for the better. People will revisit the game because it is fun, not because they need to grind some weekly thingy so they can do the thingy this week to get more thingies for next week.
Well, back before we ever had any of these systems; people literally begged the devs for them.
Everyone wanted something to do, something to earn, something to work towards; some reason to log on and play once in awhile. Dailies, weeklies, monthlies! Everyone wanted more long term progression; because they had burned through what little upgrades the game offered way too quickly.
Now that we have them, people complain about them, I feel bad for devs; you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't lol.
But like vermintide, I don't chase shinies, I just play the game because it's fun.
And without evidence that such people exist, isn't it just a strawman argument? "Look at all the people that might potentially but definitely would go from asking to remove timegates to complaining that there isn't enough content. See how bad they're theoretically acting in the future? What a problem this is."
Some may return to make that complaint, but those people will eventually make that complaint anyways. I don't see how kicking the can down the road solves anything. And I see no evidence to suggest that the people who are bothered by this game artificially restricting access to content based on the real-life passage of time (and at a notably slow pace, at that) would definitely be the same exact subset of people bothered by not having more/new things to unlock at all times.
If Left 4 Dead only allowed me access to the Silenced Submachine Gun for the first 30 days of playing, and then each week allowed me to randomly gain access to another one of the other weapons, I'd find it really annoying and unnecessarily restrictive.
If Starcraft only let me build SCVs and Marines for the first month, and then offered weekly unlocks of additional units, I'd be rather miffed about it. I might even become vocal on some online message boards.
When I finally had access to all of the content that I feel like I should have been able to acquire at my own pace -- or at the very least a more reasonable one -- I wouldn't instinctively feel the need to complain that there wasn't more content in the game.
Requiring effort and/or playtime to unlock content, like weapons / promotions / perks, seems reasonable to me. Requiring the passage of seven real-time calendar days does not.
And again, we can see that time-gating adversely effects some people. Who is it really helping?
EDIT:
Even if, hypothetically, the same people who complain about not having enough to do are all the same ones who are complaining that content is time-gated... what did the time-gates do to help, then? If they just traded one form of complaints for another, how successful was that as a solution? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9yruQM1ggc
I have to assume someone, since the people who get paid to make games use it constantly?
Time gating helps long term player retention, it must, because if it didn't; no one would use it. I would argue that it's very existence, makes it's value self evident. Why would it be so prevalent in gaming if they didn't have data to back it up? It's not as if they are guessing, there are offices full of people getting paid salaries to gather, and analyze data about this sort of thing. Multiplayer games need players, long term players; giving them long term goals that they can't complete in the short term improves the chances they will come back to the game from time to time.
Also, not to be rude, but anyone who's smart enough to argue about why time gating is bad and unneeded; is not the target demographic that time gating is designed for. People who post on forums regularly and argue about game design philosophy are a far cry from your average COD player lol. However, this is the casual "average" person dev's have to concern themselves with if they want to keep player count up. No ones saying it's perfect, or that there aren't other solutions that could possibly be better; but it works and that's why it's in a lot of games.
The big difference and idea/data behind these mechanics is that it is annoying but for only $1.99 you can get some super awesome limited-time deal to avoid this ♥♥♥♥♥♥ mechanic we put in place.
DRG is not that game, and god forbid it ever becomes it. The mechanic doesn't make any logical sense in this game.
Videgames were timegating long before the advent of micro transactions/p2w.
Still though, let's assume you're right; it makes no logical sense. How do you explain no one at GSG realizing that; given that they've proven to be competent and capable dev's in pretty much every other regard?
the M1grant is very strong built for DPS, and the dual machene guns for normal killing.
I am sure this existed in just about any MMO, but that also makes sense for monetary reasons because they want people to continue their subs.
Why here though? The only "business" reason I can fathom is to make the steam player number seem more stable and ensure the game doesn't "die". Could be legit.
But from gameplay/user perspective, you are saying this is something desirable?