Servers can be hosted by yourself, as well as by a server hosting company. (And in the first game it was strictly area-dependent: this enclave was level 5-10, that hideout was level 20-30, always.) So n00bs can be overwhelmed if they stray from the highest-level character(s) or into especially dangerous areas.A Server is used for playing with multiple people in the same world. If I as a level 20 entered your level 40 game, I'd see level 40 enemies. It used to be more 7D2D-like at least as regards level scaling (not quantity). Damage given and damage received is appropriate for what we each see (so your L40 enemy's bullets do 20 dmg to you, but my 元0 enemy - the same guy standing right there - only do 15 to me). Taken at face value, the scaling system would mean that you see level 40, I see level 30. I haven't quite sussed out (and don't remember it's been a while since I played BL) how that works out if, say, we're looking at the exact same entity. You see enemies appropriate to your level, I see enemies appropriate to my level. It actually scales enemies to each player, it seems. ĭoes Borderland increase enemy count or difficulty if more than one player enters? The coords are 0,0 at center, positives grow top-right like any graph, so, negatives are south and west.Ĥ Learning to share is probably the easiest solution, not to mention the most useful.ĥ I don't think there's a way for shared ownership, a little annoying, but it's not like you need to move things a whole lot.Ħ Would be great, but I find a fix unlikely, but if they end there, they could also fix the normal containers at the same time. Just remove the ones you don't want to end up at. Or alternatively, you can edit the generated world to remove most spawn points in spawnpoints.xml. it sucks.ģ Two variably "hacky" solutions you can teleport a player to you in debug mode (dm), I can't remember the exacts though. They'd have to keep track of who is on what stage of a quest "instance" not impossible, but maybe a lot of re-work if the system doesn't support it.Ģ Yeah, "having to" is kinda fine, but when you forget for half a session. I guess it is kinda hard, done poorly you could end up duplicating a quest over and over (one person never completes it and just re-shares). This could be due to not wanting to worry about duplication issues or something programmatically difficult, but sure would be nice if one of us didn't have to stand around waiting.ġ is pretty rare, but annoying for sure, I wouldn't mind a fix. Traders allow us both to turn in our quests at the same time but not access the inventory. Now as I am typing this, I wonder if I can put down a land-claim as well in the same area? If not, a shared land-claim is the way to go.Ħ. Only one of us can "rearrange the furniture". I might be missing something on this one but have a way to share a land-claim block. Trying to teach my son to share so that may be the solution.ĥ. Like I stated, not sold on it, but I do feel like something is missing in this regards.
Or, to keep it more realistic, have the option of two loot chests if teamed up. This is already done on the quest rewards so I would think it wouldn't be too difficult to add. I'm not sold on this idea but it is something we run into and it would be nice if we didn't have to "race" to the end to see who gets the loot. This one is not one that I am passionate about, but a round-robin loot system, or individual loot in an end-poi chest, might be something to consider. Yes, we could just wait to ally when we are stronger, but the game should have a way to allow those who want to play together from the start, a way to do that without the long treks.Ĥ. One of us is invariably multiple klicks away from the other on first spawn and one of us loses the protection of the spawned area not to mention has to trudge through often very dangerous areas to get to the other. Ally selection should be able to be done before joining the server and the server should allow allies to spawn in the same location on first entry into a new world. Having to send a friend request after each login is just annoying.ģ. We need a way to add an ally who stays an ally until we un-ally them. The ally loses the quest and the holder can no longer share it on the next log-in.Ģ. This is not just a QoL issue but has resulted in lost quests after the quest holder and ally have completed the quest but not yet turned it in and then we have to log out for some reason. We need a way to be able to keep quests that are shared when allied with someone and not have to constantly reshare our quests every time we team up. It has brought to life several QoL issues that should be addressed (and maybe they already are in A20) at some point.ġ. I have been playing a new playthrough with my son while waiting for A20.
0 kommentar(er)
