It's a shame redlynx doesn't listen to their players. When 99% agree on several issues with the game, it's obviously not the first time they've heard about it. There was a huge amount of constructive feedback from the private beta, none of which caught the attention of redlynx.
Could not disagree any more. No offense, but this is a terrible idea.Originally Posted by Vort1gon Go to original post
Trials is about giving everyone a level playing field and in order to improve at the game you (the player) must improve your skills, not hope for the RNG to be in your favor to upgrade your bike.
This would be a very easy target to abuse pay-to-win mechanics, and the pieces are already set in place (lootboxes).
If Trials were to ever go in this direction, I would not be buying it, and I'm sure many others would not either.
Apologies, if I've been a little poor in my explanation as to how it would work in the game.
Where I'm going with this is to take what is already existing and allow the player to use it. By that, I don't mean it like a creator ala Forza, Project cars, The Division where I can add a new spoiler/better gun and make the car faster to give any advantage on a run time; keep it separate like the challenges in Fusion with the main game staying exactly as is.
For example, in Expedition there's a challenge to pick up a flag pole and get to the end of the level. Once that is complete the Flagpole would then be in the player's inventory and they could then run other levels with it. Other levels have the bike running faster complete the contract and a turbo would then added to the players inventory and so on. The flagpole and turbo could both be added if a player chooses and then run a level. Runniing levels with these additions would just gain xp as the challenges do in Fusion and have no effect main run times, more additions means more xp for quicker progression and rewards the contracts that a player can use.
The reasoning behind wheels add 5% etc, is so the player knows how these effect the bike and as a creation tool. When someone is creating a track they can also state criteria for the bike and create challenges for their tracks.
I agree pay to play is very much a double edged sword when it comes to implementation. But, I would leave the game as is people could unlock these things via contracts or choose to buiy them in the store if they so wish. My issue with 'pay to play' is everything is purely cosmetic, I would like to have things which allow me to effect the gameplay and have some fun with that; actually be able to do something with it rather than just looking pretty. As I've said, it could allow players to add challemges to custom tracks, allow a player to challenege themselves add some achievemnets for certain criteria etc.
As long as it is kept seperate from the main game, I honestly don't see how it would detract/dilute the core experience..
@Vort1gon, I think people understand the idea. I also think people tend to feel the gameplay variety should come in the tracks, not in the bike upgrades. For instance if it's Track Central, most players wouldn't want to mess about min-maxing their bike upgrades for a specific track, they'd rather the track offer a good consistent experience and player skill be the main factor in success. Also, creators wouldn't want their track voted down because someone couldn't succeed at a checkpoint, because they didn't have some +5% whatever bonus applied. If the creator enforces those upgrades, then that's the equivalent of changing the physics for that one track only, and players want consistency, except perhaps where the track theme warrants something like a change in gravity or whatever. I do enjoy the odd "ride as a big snowman" sort of experience as a novelty. In general though, if you keep the inputs small (number of bikes and their associated physics) and the track count large, that leaves a big opportunity for player skill.
I'd leave the tracks as they are,
Back in the day, I was a big Ninja Gaiden fan and I'd do wooden sword runs on Master Ninja without saving. I didn't have to play the game that way, I chose to just to see if could be done and the game allowed me too.
Following on from that, Fusion being my first Trials exaperience and it offering a wide variety of stuff other than just trying to get the best time on a course; pickedit up with all the dlc so on par with Rising content wise. As good as Rising is and coming off the back of Fusion, it feels to me, personally, like there's half the game missing and there should be more to it than just racing along or having a go a skill games which are the same as before.
I think the thing with Fusion's challenges is they were optional, I could do them if I wanted to in the same way I could play Ninja Gaiden on my own terms. Whereas, Rising's contracts are more forced upon on a player. The player isn't doing flips or testing their skillls a certain way because the want to, it's because they have to and that decreases the fun, personally. I used to get a real buzz out of getting a quick time on a course but I'm just not getting that from Rising as I did with Fusion. I'm bored by the time I got to open new tracks because bar the odd new skill games there's nothing else new to see or do.
So I'm viewing what I was suggesting in the same way. Let players mess about and see what can and can't be done and test their skills in different ways how they want to. If a track can't be done under certain criteria then bitesize the challenge to certain sections etc. Look at the contract where you have to complete Corky's Construction with the Squid, I wouldn't think that possible but it is... that fender grab on the digger bucket is nuts.
But, I hear you and fair enough.
Bump,
I completed the Ubisoft Sponsor Contract 'The Bigger Rock' contract on Alcatraz earlier; great fun bombing through the level instead of my normal asthmatic tortoise run.
Despite me shaving nearly 11 secs of my time due to the bike running at 150% speed, my slower original time was retained on the leaderboards. Had the quicker time been posted, I'd have reported it and wanted it removed, I'm old skool and don't do cheating.
Was this the beta that was out a week or so before launch, or was it a different one? There is zero way they could have changed anything a week before the launch, which is why it should never have been called a beta in the first place. There may have been one before that though, not sure.Originally Posted by Shcmack_ Go to original post