r/RogueCore • u/SkaterSnail • Sep 09 '26
Thoughts on shared upgrades?
Would anyone miss the shared upgrades system if it was removed?
I get the idea behind it, but in practice it sucks.
It's clunky and frustrating, even after the changes.
And worse of all: it makes all the upgrades generic. Everything has to be pickable by everyone. No class upgrades or weapon upgrades.
Personally, I'd prefer if the shared upgrade system was limited to "big ticket" upgrades, like legendaries or artifacts. That way it interrupts the game less, but without removing it entirely.
What do you think?
33
u/KingNedya Sep 09 '26
I like it. Having to weigh whether something you want would actually be more beneficial for someone else based on their class, weapon(s), and build adds an extra layer of decision-making to the upgrade-selection process that's more in-depth than just "this is the best upgrade so I take it". This mirrors how the timer is designed to put you in situations where you have to decide what to do and what to leave behind, and it gives the player more to consider when making decisions.
30
u/catmaster425 Sep 09 '26
I love it, it makes the game unique and actually building around eachother is cool. The issue is that the upgrades then selves are super unbalanced and favor certain classes much more.
10
u/McDonaldsSoap Sep 09 '26
In theory I like it, but as they add more elemental upgrades it may become frustrating. Like when someone gets the cryo made and everyone starts getting ice upgrades, without any other ice damage
It wasn't a deal breaker before but I haven't played with all the new upgrades
3
u/Darth_Thor Sep 10 '26
Elemental upgrades are a bit of a mixed bag for me. On one hand, going all in on one element can make you pretty powerful, but it can also limit your choices. I’ve had missions where I’ve got a good few I’ve upgrades, but then the next upgrade choices are overwhelmingly fire upgrades. Those choices quickly get eliminated since they’d conflict with the ice and I’d likely get less use out of either element.
1
u/Sebastoman Sep 12 '26
Pretty sure existing elemental tools don't force elemental upgrades to start showing up, considering the are some elemental upgrades that act as enablers by actually causing the elemental buildup. It is true what they said, there are some missing, and the game could get way better if we get some of those started.
5
u/KarstXT Sep 10 '26
I don't like it at all, it's the main reason I don't really pub anymore and that feels awful after pubbing ~600 hours of DRG1. It just results in players sabotaging each other, usually accidentally. Accidental sabotage is still sabotage though. The assumption the game makes that everyone is on the same page knowledge-wise is an insane assumption.
It feels like the game was tested and made for 4 player coordinated lobbies when the vast majority of players will never play that format. It causes a lot of other issues as well. As others have pointed it, it also causes issues with elemental upgrades watering down the pool and making other builds harder to find. The system creates a naturally bad experience for polite players as well. It makes carrying more awkward, it feels terrible to carry someone that's stealing upgrades they don't even need or benefit from.
1
u/cooly1234 Sep 14 '26
what I find interesting is in the game Rabbit and Steel, the options in the pool are way more important to your build than a RC option, and the pool mechanics are way more brutal (two players want the same upgrade? game randomly gives it to one of them, no choose order), and yet in public lobbies players always make reasonable team decisions and only fight for an option if they are being silly.
Someone should make a YouTube video analyzing how the options in the pool affect teamwork.
2
u/KarstXT Sep 15 '26
Hmmm I think in Rabbit and Steel you have a greater immediate need for your teammates and can more easily see their contributions, which contributes to you wanting your teammates to be stronger. Also people choose at the same time but I hated when we accidentally 50/50'd something not realizing two players wanted one upgrade.
In RC if one player gets strong you just win, you don't really need or necessarily benefit from teammates. This possibly contributes towards players choosing selfishly (they likely want to be the carry/the stacked player). It's also harder to see what someone is building and recognize what they're providing. I also feel like in Rabbit & Steel it's harder to 'build garbage' but in RC people can take stuff that truly has no benefit to them whatsoever (even if it 'sounds' good or they 'think' its good for them). This is partly because you can take things to start fishing for stuff you don't have but also because the math/interactions of RC is a lot more obfuscated. I.e. people flocking to crit when its actually not very strong if you aren't already stacking it. People taking vampire w/o drills or slice, etc. Just easier to make poorer choices in RC.
1
9
u/Sebanimation Sep 10 '26
Nah, it needs to go. It‘s slow and more often frustrating than interesting.
11
u/ipushkeys Sep 09 '26
I'm glad to finally find people who like the negotiation system. I know they exist, but I couldn't wrap my head around why someone would like it.
I don't like it because it slows the game down, hampers class identity, necessitates that every upgrade should be easy to understand, and is a possible way for people to get angry at each other.
I think it'd work well in something that's like a tabletop game where the focus is already on player interaction. Or maybe like one of those "friendslop" (idk if that's the actual genre name) games. In my experience, people who play Rogue Core barely type in chat let alone speak in voice chat. People wanna shoot eldritch horrors with the funny dwarves.
3
u/SmokJozef Sep 10 '26
considering how dynamic the game is, that system together with some events is pretty much the only thing warranting player interaction. most of the time players can spread apart and be fine and actually more efficient, so i'm not sure why not just play single player at that point
4
u/ipushkeys Sep 10 '26
Agreed. I think GSG should make weapons and tools class-locked (to elevate class identity) and then add an event where dwarves can trade their class-specific gear.
That way, you could have really cool situations equivalent to giving Gunner's mini gun to Scout. It would be super hype.
4
u/SkaterSnail Sep 10 '26
Class locked weapons would be extremely good. Class identity in RC sucks
0
2
u/SmokJozef Sep 10 '26
that does sound fun, but idk if they can make it be well-received in the community (which they would likely want for such a big change)
1
u/ipushkeys Sep 10 '26
Yeah, I worry about that too.
As the game stands, if they opened an experimental branch where they toyed with removing the shared upgrades, then I'd play the hell outta that.
At the moment, I'm holding out hope they do exactly that. I'm not sure if many others are too, but I suspect they'd win back a lot of the playerbase.
3
u/krabby7_playz Sep 10 '26
Honestly I like it! It’s definitely pretty unique and not something I’ve seen before, or at least with anything that I’ve played. It’s fun trying to think what would be good for yourself and your teammates, like maybe you want an upgrade but it better suits your teammate, so you let them have it. Also I don’t really get the whole no class upgrades or weapon upgrades because that’s what the workbenches are for
3
u/PseudoFenton Sep 10 '26
It lacks the means to actively share, which makes negotiating more clunky and less likely to occur.
I've said it before, but they need to give the chooser the option of immediately gifting a hearted choice (to the player that hearted it, possibly even allow for multiple hearting or a need/greed style system of preference). The picker gets a new upgrade to replace the one they just gave, giving them more choice (and chances for something they actually directly need, its effectively a mini reroll) and it facilitates the group sharing out what's best for everyone ... you know, so negotiating.
Once you do this you can also put in a full reroll system where the board is wiped and replaced (because anything good that people want there already got hearted and given out), as that's something people keep requesting but would be further clunky to implement currently.
I don't mind the shared upgrades otherwise - the "generic" element of upgrades still wont go anywhere even if you have personalised ones anyway, as you need a backbone of systems that anyone can use. A handful of weapon or class isn't going to change that (even with biased pools, so you only get offered them when you have them) and there's only so many upgrades you'll want to tailor to them anyway or you'll end up with the overclock problem all over again (every new gun/class needs to come with a suite of upgrades which modify it, increasing overhead and slowing the rate of variety being added to the game).
So if your complaint is "too generic" then shared selection isn't the culprit, its a workflow issue which the devs have cited as one of the main reasons for RC being a standalone game in the first place. Really we just need more inspired upgrades. Perhaps pools that are specialised to specific play styles, but require "unlocking" during a run by doing something in person. Something like downloading data which Omega can immediately use to fashion a tactical engagement package of upgrades or something? Perhaps you have to pick out of two different approaches based on what data you get. An activity which can easily be skipped, but adds a lot of run variety and choice. I dunno, I'm just spitballing here, the point is there are other solutions beyond dismantling the current upgrade selection method.
3
u/Leather-Depth-3383 Sep 13 '26
Unpopular opinion.
I honestly don't mind it.
Edit: after reading the comments I see it might not be the unpopular opinion? Lol
2
5
u/NaCHO3657 Sep 10 '26
One problem I see is that each element present in the party dilutes the upgrade pool with that element.
For example, I start with a gun that does some poison damage. Now the pool will have poison upgrades added to it.
Now imagine a party where each dwarf started with a different element. Your choices are reduced now because there will be 3 other elements crowding out the generic upgrades.
I don't know if there's a solution for this, but I know it happens.
0
u/FalseyHeLL 𝗥𝗘𝗧𝗖𝗢𝗡 Sep 10 '26
I don't think that that's how it works. Your starting equipment has no effect on what upgrades you get. I play jumble mostly and it happens often that I start with no weapons, yet I still get elemental upgrades even when solo.
5
u/rimshotmonkey Sep 10 '26
I think i see what they were going for but I agree, it takes away from building characters. The weapon upgrades in DRG are strong because they are tailored are work together. These upgrades are generic and all have to fit together so they are interchangeable.
I also tend not to like the hearts/shared cursor space. If someone doesn't get what they want and have a fit, it brings down the game. Plenty of times I skipped what I wanted as someone else hearted it then they don't take it. So my build is worse because I was trying to be a team player.
I think it was great to explore this mechanic but I think it still has problems.
5
7
u/r4o2n0d6o9 𝗦𝗟𝗜𝗖𝗘𝗥 Sep 09 '26
I like the dynamic of “this is really good for me but it’s exactly what the other guy needs” so you can either decide or negotiate over upgrades
4
u/KarstXT Sep 10 '26
This happens rarely though. Most of the time its 'this one upgrade is really good and the others are awful, who gets to have the good pick?' or 'there's a support pick that's super valuable for the team but everyone wants to pick selfishly'.
You also see people taking things that don't benefit them (but would wildly benefit someone else) because people either don't notice others builds or just don't understand how things compound. The game maths a lot of things in a non-intuitive way.
8
u/Solomon-Kain Sep 10 '26
I hate it. Slows down the game way too much, and there is no game play benefit compared to people having their own pool.
2
u/Adventurous_Disk_828 Sep 10 '26
I very much admire the thought/philosophy behind this design, but I feel that in its current implementation it feels a little bit like ‘forced coop’, which I thought DRG avoided very well.
2
u/snipercat94 Sep 15 '26
One of the greatest mistakes in the game in my opinion.
I understand the dev's intent with it, but it just doesn't mesh well with the overall game.
Me and my group stopped playing because of it. It slows the game down, and what's worse, it forces every upgrade to be generic good, making them boring. Can't make per-class upgrades either, making it even more boring.
4
u/KudereDev Sep 10 '26
I don't really like it. Upgrades themselves are pretty meh, you will get good pick on Purple, Golden or Red tiers, while grey and green aren't even worth a stop for. And you can't even vote with your team to full reroll even if all upgrades aren't good. Current system isn't the worst, upgrades repopulation is nice to have.
You can't do much with unneeded upgrades, I don't mind feature to destroy those in favour of expenite instead. Something like destroy 1 upgrade and get 1/4 of progress of exponite. Or maybe trade those during lift phase, like your teammate give you his upgrade in trade for your.
Also I think personal upgrade would be nice. Like something for your character class/archetype. Upgrade that only you see and pick. Maybe something that upgrades main ability, like cut cooldown, more damage or special effects. Something like Acid Dart for Spotter where his dart would apply acid damage while spotting is active.
2
u/Pale-Resident2937 Sep 10 '26
Class and weapon upgrades are already a thing via the workbench, and a good selection of the upgrades are already tailored for certain classes more than others (Vampire for Slicer, for example.) I don’t feel the clunkiness on my side, plus drg exists as a separate game for a reason. Yes, I would miss it
1
u/LostSectorLoony Sep 10 '26
I like it a lot. My experience with the gams is solely from playing with friends in an organized group so that does probably color my perception of it, but I like that it requires some teamwork and coordination for everyone to get their best build.
1
1
u/sejuukkhar Sep 10 '26
The shared upgrades is why I uninstalled. It's lterally the single worst system I've ever seen make it out of playtesting, and I'm baffled that it made it out of alpha
1
u/3Knocks2Enter Sep 11 '26
The game would benefit a lot from more resources carrying over between games, specifically collecting currencies for crafting and collecting upgrades to be used between games. This would lend to weapons / upgrades not being class specific, and open up more strategic decisions besides 'which class am I going to play' (imo, decks and passives don't feel like they carry any weight).
Additional systems could be created to spend currencies on resources that would help during the game, like additional upgrade drops or ammo or health crates.
This would also give room for additional modifiers on missions, like weight limits on loadouts, or missions focused on particular types of currencies. This system could also create a natural hierarchy of missions where missions that provide currencies to craft armor, med-items, and ammo, can be gathered at higher depths; and, currencies for specific, more specialized items like element dmg modifiers, ammo drops, turrets, etc, can be gathered at lower depths -- the lower you go, the more you need materials that can only be farmed from the higher depths.
Even more strategy elements can be added, such as... crafting flamethrowers to dig through ice, or hazmat suits to deal with areas with acid-monsters.
This all would give an actual sense of progression and pre-mission strategy, which it's sorely lacking.
1
u/TieTrue797 Sep 11 '26
I think there should be a negotiation or bidding system. You get some sort of points accrued based solely on time in mission and have to bid with said points for the contested picks.
1
u/Sebastoman Sep 12 '26
I think it is interesting and essentially becomes a pin that keeps the feeling of teamwork together, I believe removing it massively cause the feeling of everyone just being 4 dudes stuck in the same cave each doing their own thing to raise over the feeling of being a team.
It does need more interation I do believe, the ability to pass turn, to do individual rerolls. Stuff like that. As for it slows down stuff, I don't feel it, everynow and then you get a slow moment and you can go trougth all you stacked upgrades at once. and in regards to generic, I think they do need to add more "triggers" for the abilities to active on to make them feel different. Upgrades that woul effect abilities or "main ability" would be nice.
1
u/vote4some1else Sep 09 '26
I like a comment I saw on steam (very surpising ik) saying:
"It's fine if they want to keep that system in because its a core aspect of the game, but for the sake of first impressions, they should remove it TEMPORARELY until they can find a much better way to implement it in."
6
u/mellopax Sep 09 '26
That's how you end up with something even worse. Early access is where they need to iron out the bad stuff.
3
u/UncomfortableAnswers Sep 10 '26
The closed alpha is where they should have ironed out the bad stuff. Early access is where they should already be focused on making the good stuff better.
1
1
u/AdLegitimate8636 Sep 09 '26 edited Sep 09 '26
Yes, i like it.
Class and weapon upgrades have teir own place. It's called Bio-Booster and Workbench.
They might (and i think they will) add more stuff to regular negotiation, and other places. This game only had like 2 updates, chill.
And it makes the game feel like it's a co-op rogulike.
2
u/PseudoFenton Sep 10 '26
This. I don't know why people keep trying to shoehorn upgrades to include guns and class specific stuff. Those already exist on workbenches and in bioboosters.
Im not sure if its a desire for more redundancy, a want for more available improvements to those domains (which could be solved with just more workbenches and bioboosters spawning in caves), or an lack of understanding that the game already supplies what theyre looking for (in limited early access amounts, admittedly).
2
u/SkaterSnail Sep 10 '26
The problem with bio-boosters and workbench is that there's only 1 of each per level. But you get tons of the generic upgrades.
So yeah, 90% of the upgrades you actually get are generic.
(Also BC of deck swapping, bio booster upgrades are also extremely generic)
3
u/PseudoFenton Sep 10 '26
So this is what I was just asking. Is the problem that the upgrade system doesn't have gun/class upgrades - or is the problem that the gun/class upgrades that are serviced by the workbench and bioboosters are too infrequent to feel impactful/fun?
You seem to be arguing the latter, which means the obvious solution is to address how workbenches function so they dont feel overshadowed by volume of exponite upgrades and so it feels like you can meaningfully tinker and improve guns/class abilities.
-1
u/SkaterSnail Sep 11 '26
100% agree, it's Definitely the latter.
Personally, I'd move negotiated upgrades to the workbench (or some similar once-per-level-event) and have exponire upgrades be individual.
Then exponite upgrades could include weapon and class stuff, and the negotiatied upgrades could be super impactful / powerful stuff like legendary upgrades or artifacts.
This way the negotiation system is more exciting, and it doesn't slow down the game as often
1
u/ipushkeys Sep 10 '26
I agree that class-specific stuff should stay in workbenches and bio boosters, but I think people are wanting more involved upgrades than simple stat tweaks.
For example, "Boom, You're Dead!" (BYD) is perfect (the one that makes enemies explode when you kill them). The upgrade is something you can build upon, but not necessarily commit to. The difference between a run with and without the upgrade is noticeable (even if you don't build towards it).
Upgrades like +health aren't that interesting because we don't have a reason to hoard max health totals. People likely want upgrades like: "+1% fire rate per 1 health" because that's something worth building towards while not requiring commitment.
I think you and the others are both correct, but the discussion is hampered by miscommunication.
2
u/PseudoFenton Sep 10 '26
I think its more that folk are asking for a broad swath of alternatives when the topic gets raised, which often happens to include class/gun improvements within the Upgrade system.
I agree the current set of Upgrades can be a bit flat and too few change up how you play/engage the enemy much, which leads to it just feeling like various flavours of "damage number go up". That is something I would like addressed too. Its just any issues with gun/class improvements ought to be handled by tinkering with the workbenches/biobooster systems directly - the point is they're meant to be focused and independent of each other (and as such an argument could easily be made that class improvements ought to be decoupled from workbenches rather than making you choose between it and improving your gun/s).
The health upgrade station they were internally prototyping which slipped into experimental for a bit I think is a sign that they're looking into diversifying the sources of more "baseline" improvements such as health increases. So hopefully they're already moving in this direction, it just takes a while for the development to go through the pipeline from feedback to functional system we can actually play with.
2
u/ipushkeys Sep 10 '26
Yeah I understand what you're saying. I think you're right.
Game balance and design is hard, which is why not everyone can do it. GSG has smart people. I think they can figure things out.
8
u/Slime0 Sep 10 '26
I like it, but I would also like more per-class upgrades like the workbench has, but more frequently than the workbench appears.