• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bramble

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Story telling, wood turning, gaming, teaching

Recent Profile Visitors

1,530 profile views
  1. Define what "an edge" is, followed by what constitutes "game-breaking" (or not). Otherwise, my apologies, but your declaration sorta fell flat. From a realistic perspective two facts stick out, regardless of my not caring for the trend of multiple-accounts-oh-rama as "a thing", to the point we've started hearing the idea in recent years you "need" to run multiple accounts to play a game "properly".: ACE isn't going to adopt a position against it, therefore it's going to happen. There is significant advantage to running multiple accounts and alts. I don't see this as debatable given it is demonstrated by it "being a thing" nowadays, moreso than ever before. In other words, if there wasn't much of an advantage to do so . . . you'd see far fewer engaging in the practice. In the "worst case" scenarios where people are looking to actively game the system to the extent possible for profit/gain (IRL or in-game wealth) there are three core resource-development targets that are managed: 1) An organized group of "many" players, 2) As many of those as possible running multiple accounts and alts, and 3) Development/use of tools and techniques to be used by those players, often in coordinated fashion (e.g. Seeking out and identifying exploit opportunities, hacks/unauthorized programs or macros, setting up scams, etc.)
  2. Firstly, testing can absolutely be used as an "excuse" for ANYTHING at this point in time. Because, well, the game is in Testing. The other guy made a relevant observation. Secondly, Jah hit on a point you seem to be missing because there's a 50%'s thing going on here. "Campers" turning their backs on entire open-PvP zones to turtle up at safe-zone borders are . . . AT LEAST . . . 1/2 the problem. Thus, Jah's (intentionally or unintentionally) astute observation: Safe Zones have a tendency to see lame tactics . . . by all sorts of lame players . . . in evidence. I don't believe we will be seeing quite the same thing as "safe ZONES" in CF, as in some other games (e.g. Archeage). I grew up on a red everywhere server, even your guild hall. So, I understand the environment. It doesn't particularly scare me if that's the way CF will go. I've also played games where there were safe zones (or spots/points, like a rezz point), and I can understand a reason for the mechanic depending on the game and where it's used. But I always get a good CHUCKLE out of the piteous, pathetic, squealing that goes on by "rough and ready" PvP hotshots who park their sorry butts right around the safe zone borders, keeping their backs to the entire rest of the open PvP map . . . then complain their targets (right at the safe zone border) are . . . SMART ENOUGH to skip back and stay alive. Then turn around themselves and use the same tactic to get away with thrashing people trying to leave the safe zone. /palmface Here's the deal: If the 350lb fat guy's hairy arse is causing you distress because he's decided to wear a thong at the beach . . . stop staring at it. "Lame tactics" are a fixture at safe zone borders . . . for lame players on both sides of the equation, and I'd argue more often the campers not the zone skippers due to basic volume / sq ft differentials: Safe zone borders represent a comparatively TINY footprint on a PvP map. Turn around, head out, go kill something. So, I'll be fine with CF with or without "safe zone" borders, in any band. Because I'm not a lame player. And because I believe ACE has stated what their vision for the game is, and have faith in the fact they understand how to evaluate neutral ground (or not) in their PvP centric game . . . in development and testing.
  3. The above by Srathor, and the below by Durenthal pretty much summarize the two sides of the dialog IMO. Not trying to stir the pot or "lure" Durenthal into another response, but, taking what you said (Durenthal) then bouncing that off what Srathor said, any thoughts/opinions?
  4. That's a boat load of work and thought. Thanks Kindly.
  5. I'd rather get into the first year plus of CF going live before contemplating anything like this.
  6. How super-human is super-human? I ask as (IMO) there's a difference between Advantage and Disadvantage on a flatter scale, and Super Human vs an Ant.
  7. How super-human is super-human? I ask as (IMO) there's a difference between Advantage and Disadvantage on a flatter scale, and Super Human vs an Ant.
  8. @BarriaKarl At the high level you have five factors in FFXIV Crafting: Pool of available skills on your hot bar, directly related to your crafting level (skills available to that level) An "endurance bar" (Crafting Points) that sort of acts like a mana bar. Certain skills burn off more/less of that bar on use. When it's empty, no more "specials", just the basic Synthisys I believe. A "Durability" counter, which is essentially an allowance for how many Touch (quality increase attempt) or Synthesis (crafting progress to completion) attempts you are allowed. This counter alters based on item / item-type. A base mat might only have four moves available, while a Breastplate might have eight. A Synthesis Progress bar. If you run out of attempts (durability) without hitting the 100% mark on Synthesis - Fail, all mats lost. A Quality Progress bar that advances by some amount each time you use a Touch skill. And an additional dimension I guess, for really six factors: Your Crafting skill based on crafting level and GEAR. Two stats are relevant: Crafting (influences how much the Synthesis Bar advances each time, and Control (influences how much the Quality bar advances each Touch use) When you begin to craft an item you are essentially looking to advance Quality to 100% with enough "moves" left in Durability to move the Synthesis bar to completion. If you do that you get a High Quality Proc item, guaranteed. Obviously many times this isn't the case, and where the challenge to the system shows: It's a balancing act trying to get a max % number for Quality, with enough moves to complete the production (synthesis). Depending on your characters base Crafting and Control Ratings you might only have enough umph to get the quality chance to, for instance, 5% on a more difficult item. Until you ply the entire crafting dynamic and do one or more of several things: Increase your crafting level, make sure your gear is all up to snuff to optimize Crafting and Control, perhaps add enhancements that up Crafting Points and what have you, or rethink several different combinations of the "special" crafting skills I'm not going to pan through here. Some of those skills reset your Durability counter (increasing number of moves available - and a big cost to your CP pool), allow you to "pause" to see if you get the quality progression bonus proc (rng), etc. It's a decent interactive dynamic on two or three levels that does test your ability to juggle/judge factors that affect how many attempts you get in the process, split between how much you can push the Quality % while maintaining enough moves (durability) to complete Synthesis. With a reasonable incorporation of RNG in my opinion.
  9. And what I'm pointing out is a square peg round hole idea going on, unless you read Dondagora's post carefully and understand what he's saying. Loss, for whatever reason, in PvP isn't perceived the same as loss/failure in Crafting. My contention is that he essentially has that right. "See, this is what you two don't seem to understand: Losing things in this crafting process is vastly different between losing things when you're killed." - Dondagora Furthermore, when I re-read his post you've quoted, I don't see the assertion "every death is a series of bad decisions". What I see asserted is that in PvP the player is empowered to make decisions in the entire process. A player might make ALL the right decisions, perfectly, and still lose the fight because they made a mistake in twitch for instance. E.g. See my clarification: Whatever the outcome, whatever decisions made, players are very naturally focussed on each other in PvP, and their own performance (or lack of) not "the game". In contrast, in a crafting/RNG dynamic, if failure/loss rates are too high, there isn't a focus on Player vs. Player. It's going to cause "The Game" to be the focus of being "The Enemy". This is really, really different than perceptions generated in the PvP domain with "failures". Understanding WHY those two things operate differently seems a worthwhile point. Also, this isn't about NOT having failure rates, which seems to be your position by asserting well, you have to have failures of course, because Crafting is basically player vs The Game (actually the point really). The OP's post, as an example, doesn't suggest "no fails or I quit". What the OP is complaining about are his perceptions of DEGREE and FREQUENCY. That means it's about the calibration of a dynamic, which is utterly critical for success, not whether it should or should not exist. Full circle to the question I asked in my post a couple above, where's the flag planted, coupled with the link to the recent ACE Q&A vid where gathering/crafting is touched on. They do want it drawn out some. This means it is likely gathering and crafting WILL be a bit more hard-core than in other games, they've asked us to wait and see until it's all more finished.
  10. Spontaneous brain bubble as the result of doodling this morning. At the right time . . . in the future . . . near release I guess. I find her voice remarkably pleasing, and I'd think would do justice to songs written for Crowfall. Just a plug. Hope everyone had a good weekend.
  11. @Drakonil Another from The Hobbit series. What a voice.
  12. Can anyone point me, if it exists, a dialog from ACE regarding their philosophical stance on Ranged vs Melee?
  13. Dondagora's assessment you responded to was, generally, correct. Lets put it this way: In a PvP setting, regardless of any conditions you've mentioned, the situation inevitably causes the one defeated to fixate on the other PLAYER as the cause. Or perhaps their own mistakes / deficiencies in the engagement (again, Player centric). In the case of crafting / RNG . . . excessive failure and loss causes the Player to fixate on what? THE GAME . . . of course. This is the salient point in the discussion I believe. Any game, of any Genre, that causes an "excessive" amount of game-is-the-enemy fixation is going to what? Lose players. Why are you going to log in to enjoy an activity with Game(X), if the game itself is the Enemy? This is where I don't envy Devs and Designers, and a Dev House trying to fulfil a Vision. Because there is the other side of the coin: There MUST be challenge. There must be "skill ceilings". There must be modes of progression through which time and effort (hopefully with some entertainment embedded please) are expended. Those that are truly better than others should have a platform on which that level of expertise can be put on display, or exercised. Those that aren't "at the top" should STILL be part of the community and be naturally motivated to log in. Their little piece of the pie . . . part of the Community. It's a little bit of a tight-rope act. Still, IMO, Dondagora's statement was correct as I interpreted it: In PvP settings the focus/locus of attention is invariably between Players as the "enemy", and on themselves relative to skill execution, etc. They aren't (generally) going to focus on The Game as the Enemy if they die in PvP. They'll focus on their opponent(s), or engage in a critique of themselves or the situation. Not "the game" per se. (Yes, exceptions exist such as OP classes wielding "broken" skills, but I consider that a different domain: balancing the intent of the platform). So, the bottom line is: Where's the middle ground on this particular topic? Where do we plant the flag so that challenge and earnings are more (as opposed to less) true so it's not ez-mode, yet not so draconian too many players feel The Enemy is . . . The Game? EDIT: May Q&A touches on Gathering and Crafting progression philosophy:
  14. Nothing to fear:
  15. This is a good point. In a sense, this would be an active dynamic woven into the player economy. So, there's a shortage of Harvesters, the demand becomes "painful" for Guilds or individuals, opening up an opportunity for Harvesters to negotiate short term jobs / contracts for said Guilds. Compensation or "cut" is agreed upon, Guild provides the protection muscle, etc. Nice idea I guess, except for the Account Farms some will be running. /scratcheshead