Feedback after 100 hours of playtime



I bought the Inquisitor complete collection a little over month ago and have just hit the mark of 100 hours of playtime (as Crusader, currently level 68 + some low level alts). Thought this would be a good time to provide some feedback. Since I was around for the release of Diablo 1 I daresay I'm familiar with the ARPG genre. Needless to say, I generally enjoyed Inquisitor very much. Wouldn't have played it for an average of 25 hours/week if I didn't, which is a lot even for quarantine. For a while I even thought this would become my favorite ARPG. Until I discovered one deal beaker. I'd like to discuss that first, after which I've got some smaller QoL points.

So, the deal beaker? The level caps. To me, playing a difficulty level equal or near (+/-3) character level is boring. Boring is the last thing a game should be. Boring games loose players, and that might pretty soon include me. I don't want to be a drama queen here, but seriously, right now I'm trying to figure out how to keep the game interesting to me and if you're selling a finished game, that is not a position you want your players to be in. Frankly, I've got too many games in my library to be grinding (influence for tarot cards/warzone playthroughs) and then still not be able to play at the difficulty of my choice most of the time. Hence, deal breaker.

Now I understand that such a difficulty level is not boring to everyone and that's fine. That is why I loved the ability to adjust it throughout the campaign. Actually that is the reason I'm able to compare both gameplay experiences in the first place. And that is what I'm pleading for here: options. The adjustable difficulty throughout the campaign is a simple, yet very good touch. Then came the random missions, which used to offer me a similar choice simply by varying in level, which also worked.

That is until I started to approach level 70. I noticed random missions didn't go any higher than that, Googled it and learned, to my astonishment, that this is intentional. Seriously, I was surprised because a) nothing had pointed in that direction (not even a marker on the level rewards tree) and b) the game up until that point seemed to have been designed to be very open and flexible. I have seen a lot of titles that require you to finish the campaign before being able to access "end  game" or special content for example.

On top of all this, the level caps actually contradict other game mechanics, such as challenges. How exactly is a level 68 character supposed to complete a challenge "at least 4 levels higher"?

So no, I really can't wrap my head around the decision to implement level caps, as I see no added value, depth or fun in it. The game could do perfectly without them. Namely:

  • Allow us to add difficulty to warzone missions in the same way we can adjust campaign missions and special assignments. (+ of course, minimum difficulty=player level w/o cap.) I mean I have played ONE warzone mission in total. Playing seven level 50 missions at a minimum player level of 50, only to get +5 levels on my next run is not an interesting prospect. I'd also have to ignore all other content for a long time in order to maintain that gap (at least 10 players levels) and the whole just seems needlessly restrictive.
  • Make void crusade and random missions scale with ANY player level like they do when you're (well) below 70. Alter the tarot cards that currently set a static level. These do not alleviate the situation by the way. Around player level 70, 80 and 90 they're gonna make you choose between boring and impossible. Also, above 70 I'd have to always choose the same cards. Which calls the point of the whole tarot system into question.
  • I you feel the curve towards 99 should be increasingly steeper, simply adjust level requirements. Simple, not original but freeing us all (devs and players) from a lot of unnecessary restrictions. You made a game that has GREAT end game potential. Set it free, baby.

End of speech. I also had some smaller remarks:

  • Morality needs a rework. Most of the time, the choice I'd like to make story wise is not the one I need in terms of passives and perks. Morality doesn't work as intended, namely as a series of difficult choices story wise, which is a nice touch for an RPG, when it's not connected to stats. Also, where's the love for physical dmg? Warp and heat get some, phys gets none.
  • No abrupt mission endings: see this post.
  • Usually when I switch equipped gear with inventory gear, the unequipped piece ends up in the first free slot of the inventory. Please make it trade places with the inventory piece.
  • When playing campaign missions, conversations (vox) often overlap with others (meeting a boss)
  • Please rethink the position of some passives, for example Myocytic Mesh. Movement speed is a universal skill tree, useful for every build. MM is not. A lot of passives that benefit a specific weapon type are optional. MM needs to be as well.
  • Switch weapons keybind should work in inventory.
  • More special maps please! One that relies heavily on tower defense elements could be fun. Also, a more refined version of Unholy Cathedral (larger map with different elements, scripts, variety in waves) would be awesome.
This post was edited 2 years 107 days ago by Amplifiction
Store Page
Feedback after 100 hours of playtime
Your Thoughts? Please login to place your opinion. Not a member yet? Register here and now!
2 years 107 days ago
Posted by Amplifiction 2 years 108 days ago
Well that doesn't sound encouraging at all. I'm not surprised this has been mentioned before but that the devs actually moved in the opposite direction is baffling. The three most crucial factors for player retention in any ARPG: endgame, endgame and endgame.

That's's ALL about the end-game if you want to keep ppl playing. Otherwise, an ARPG becomes a game you ignore until some big update comes along (which, hopefully, will be the case with the seasons patch).

If Neocore hadn't shot themselves in the foot by removing some key end-game systems, and if they had focused on end-game from the start, this game would have thousands playing right now.

This comment was edited 2 years 107 days ago by treecargarage
2 years 108 days ago
Well that doesn't sound encouraging at all. I'm not surprised this has been mentioned before but that the devs actually moved in the opposite direction is baffling. The three most crucial factors for player retention in any ARPG: endgame, endgame and endgame.
2 years 108 days ago
Solid feedback. I've been telling the devs that they need to add difficulty modifiers forever now...and so have a few other people, but nothing seems to be done about it.

What's funny is that in the past, Neocore had a lot more interesting systems that, for some reason unknown to us, were removed. This included:
1) endless WZ (which I did not like that much, but it's much, MUCH better than the pathetic WZ that exists now)
2) Tarot missions that were actually hard and that were actually customizable (you could select your mission type and difficulty)
3) grindable end-game boss (could fight him after you grinded enough in WZ) which gave end-game loot (WZ relics)

Now, you have a whole bunch of pointless grind that gets VERY boring very fast. I have literally nothing to do except log in at night and purchase some mats and relics from the Ordos/Relic vendors.

I've said it a million times by now. This game needs:
1) difficulty dropdown (make it go up to +9000)
2) make difficult missions ACTUALLY WORTH DOING (HUGE boost in % chance of finding the best loot)
3) make everything COOP
4) add bosses that are difficult and drop GOOD LOOT
5) add great, end-game, UNIQUE items (is currently being worked on by trebron55)
6) bring back endless, but make it way better
7) add general chat
8) add MUCH better match-making
9) make the coop experience MUCH better (it's a horrible lag-fest for me and others most of the time)
10) add set items (personal preference)

I may be missing some things...