Concerns about multiplayer cheating and roadmap

It is EA, you can expect a wipe to happen at some point. When a major update hits live there is a fair chance our saves will be bricked due to system changes. It is a common occurrence with EA games, it is your responsibility as a consumer to inform yourself about this. Know what you sign up for. If you don’t like the idea of a wipe then don’t invest TOO much time into the game.

I’m at around 100 hours but wouldn’t mind a wipe at some point. When 1.0 hits live I’d rather start fresh and see what is changed than continue with an old character that I have lost attachment to. Besides I can always remake/redo it to an extent.


How are obtained items more important than hacks that oneshot you?

And how do you control, if time and effort was actually put in to acquire those items?
RMT is a thing. RNG is a thing. Bots are a thing. Exploits are and will be a thing. OP Builds only there to farm are a thing.
By focusing on economy, all you are doing is reward people who get around systems even more.

Agree that this would be the more unfun solution, but still, if you allow all items and simply normalize the base stats, normalize the weight and remove enchants even in the current form of the game we would be left with plenty of play styles.

If you take the economy out of the PvP, none of these are issues. And you basically seem to agree here with my first reply. Even one more level that is tough to control and imo unnecessary.

Maybe farming for ridiculous amounts of silver being necessary is part of the actual issue here, if you think about it. If economy is a necessary factor to be able to progress to a strong PvP state, of course those two are inseperable. If it aint, they aren’t.

These are great approaches and do in no way shape or form conflict with any of my suggestions. Isn’t that a similar workaround than removing affixes? One could argue if items and specific affixes remain gated behind RNG as is, number crunching alone wouldn’t be enough to guarantee fairness though.

You could certainly try, but this approach holds the game back in more ways than it helps, but that is just my pov.

We are completely in disagreement here. If you pay 30 something dollars for a game to play and give feedback as you go for devs to further improve and have better marketing from the input and feedback, it would be very disrespectful of players time and energy put into that game and giving of the feedback just to have a wipe. I could see if this was a 5 dollar purchase, maybe then. But, not really, we are paying for something and should not lose all the time investment into the product, which a wipe would do just that, unnecessarily.

Yeah I was gonna say quite a few games, as long as they aren’t indie roguelikes or something lacking permanent RPG mechanics, I remember wiping at some point in its life cycle

Well, it is not unnecessary though, it is almost required.

Most games in EA undergo several Major Patches. These patches bring big system changes based upon player feedback or general progress on the game. These changes then have a chance to break save files, due to compatibility issues. Same way that you can’t insert a floppy disc in a modern PC (might not be an accurate analogy, but it’s about the concept).

A wipe is most likely inevitable at some point :sweat_smile:

Now, you could request backwards compatibility for save files. This means that the newer version of the game is capable of reading older save files. I am not a game developer so I don’t know how hard this is, or whether it is feasible.

With regards to 1.0 launch, I think we will remain in disagreement here yeah.

1 Like

If wipes are necessary, partial conversion methods are still possible.

It shouldn‘t be so tough to give players a way to boost a character to a specific level, or grant them the recipes that they collected and city upgrades or even story progressions based on what they had before. These should behave like checkboxes.

Wouldn‘t that be good compromise?

Alternatively, a somewhat extreme option: If you wipe the game completely, give players the option for a refund, perhaps in a magnitude based on their time played.


I don‘t know why many developers don‘t respect the players time in that regard more. Not only when progressing, but also when investing into a specific playstyle. As i recall for example in Hearthstone, if something gets nerfed/changed you simply can opt for a full refund of the card at full price and buy something else. It drastically decreased my time playing Wicked for a while now, after two of my three main characters where gimped as a result of nerfs, without clean options to change their playstyles.

It should be kept in mind that multiplayer is a huge system that will impact vast swaths of this game, and it needs a lot of time in players hands to be thoroughly tested. The sooner players have access to multiplayer the sooner they can provide feedback on what is and isn’t working. The later multiplayer is implemented the less effective that testing will be, and potentially more development time will be wasted on revisiting areas of the game that have already been introduced to ensure they work for both multi and single player.

That’s a big part of why I’m disappointed that the Crucible is being prioritized instead. Adding in ways for players to kill time in end-game content like the Crucible (despite the fact that, regardless of desire, they may potentially need to wipe before launch) is nice and all, but it isn’t going to help get Wicked to a finished state faster and it’s prioritizing something that is currently meaningless over major systems that are core to the game’s design.


Agree 100% with this. Multiplayer can‘t come soon enough, precisely because of this reasoning.

Also how can you accurately assess the impact of perceived issues, without testing them?

i wonder what people expected, when they opened what feels like 69 threads about the crucible needing rework/checkpoints/nerfed boss etc.
Apparently the community yelled so loud, it is now been prioritized. congrats guys, u did it!

but all sarcasm aside. i think with the current state of the game, multiplayer would not work. the game is too easy in single player, what would happen if you just rush through it with a 4 people party in like 30 mins? there is not enough content to really test multiplayer. and it might also be strategic to postpone MP since i would bet the yelling would get loud again very soon, because there is not enough to do in MP.

so adding some content first, before you add MP seems logical to me tbh.

1 Like

That seems like a wild exaggeration.

Since when do people rush in coop multiplayer? My multiplayer playthroughs take roughly three times as long as singleplayer ones… Be it only for the reason to arrange playdates.

Also, we want to test multiplayer and will play accordingly - Bet we are not the only ones.

According to Thomas, when playing Wicked as co-op the opponent stats are scaled up to increase the difficulty, and the encounters themselves have been altered. Obviously that setup needs its own testing; the differences make any data from a single-player run irrelevant to multiplayer (and vice versa).

Suggesting we need more content first before we add multiplayer is like suggesting we need more content first before we add singleplayer. The game needs more content no matter what angle you look at it from, but that will come over time as we get closer to launch. I would also point out that multiplayer is, in itself, additional content; it is an alternate way to play the game, is bringing with it more support-type builds (e.g. healers), and also includes PvP and (being its own beast) everything that side of multiplayer brings with it.

If there were 69 people creating threads complaining about the state of the Crucible that simply means 69 players don’t understand Early Access and are trying to play Wicked as if it’s a finished game. But it’s not a finished game, this is game that is still in development and very incomplete.

Thomas made it clear early on that the version of the Crucible they entered early access with was just a placeholder, meaning all the threads critiquing it were pointless. The only real impact those criticisms had were in convincing the developers to prioritize a currently meaningless activity over implementing core systems like Multiplayer. I say “currently meaningless” because (despite their desire not to) if they end up needing to wipe at some point before launch then all the time players are spending on grinding drops in the Crucible will have been for naught.